Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Obama Economy

As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.


As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.


The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.

Link? I refuse to believe you can write coherently for that long.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

Originally posted by KidRock
The Obama Economy



Stop right there, have you factored in how long Obama has been in office and what effect the "Obama Economy" could have on the previous "Bush Economy" in said time-span?

Na, you didn't.

The Dow has been jumping up and down for months now, and been on a steady decline long before Obama. Give it some time before you say "Obama did it."

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop right there, have you factored in how long Obama has been in office and what effect the "Obama Economy" could have on the previous "Bush Economy" in said time-span? The Dow has been jumping up and down for months now, and been on a steady decline long before Obama.

Na, you didn't.

Rather you like it or not, or even if it is fair, it is now Obama Economy. Life sucks, get over it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Rather you like it or not, or even if it is fair, it is now Obama Economy. Life sucks, get over it.

Get over what? I'm not the one passing the blame so early in the game.

The very article says he inherited a shit economy, blaming him for what he's inherited is a piss-poor tactic.

Like I said, the guy's been in office a very short time, give it some time for his policies to alter the state of affairs positively (or negatively) before you pounce.

"Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery."

I.E. Give it some time.

Originally posted by Robtard
Get over what? I'm not the one passing the blame so early in the game.

The very article says he inherited a shit economy, blaming him for what he's inherited is a piss-poor tactic.

Like I said, the guy's been in office a very short time, give it some time for his policies to alter the state of affairs positively (or negatively) before you pounce.

"Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery."

I.E. Give it some time.

Basically it does not matter. Obama is the president, the economy sucks, Obama is to blame. No arguing will change this hard political reality.

In time, if it turns around, then it will be to Obama's credit regardless if he deserves it or not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Basically it does not matter. Obama is the president, the economy sucks, Obama is to blame. No arguing will change this hard political reality.

In time, if it turns around, then it will be to Obama's credit regardless if he deserves it or not.

If you'd rather not look at the bigger picture and just do a shove-head-in-the-ass manuever, sure.

Guaranteed the Republican party will take to take credit when it goes up, regardless of a Dem or Rep house/senate. They've already blamed the Dems (which they are in part to blame) solely for the economy, despite the Reps having the houses under Clinton and for six of Bush's eight years.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you'd rather not look at the bigger picture and just do a shove-head-in-the-ass manuever, sure.

Guaranteed the Republican party will take to take credit when it goes up, regardless of a Dem or Rep house/senate. They've already blamed the Dems (which they are in part to blame) solely for the economy, despite the Reps having the houses under Clinton and for six of Bush's eight years.

I'm not giving you my opinion. I telling you a political reality.

The only way to change this reality is to form a third party. The political parties in the US are not capable of doing anything good from the common person's point of view.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not giving you my opinion. I telling you a political reality.

The only way to change this reality is to form a third party. The political parties in the US are not capable of doing anything good from the common person's point of view.

That was more of the royal "you" and not you Shaky, even though you're a passive-aggressive closet Republican.

Agreed, we do need a strong third party with the potential of taking way votes, if for the only reason to keep the two we have now honest and sticking to what they say during elections.

Originally posted by Robtard
That was more of the royal "you" and not you Shaky, even though you're a passive-aggressive closet Republican.

Agreed, we do need a strong third party with the potential of taking way votes, if for the only reason to keep the two we have now honest and sticking to what they say during elections.

I'm really a Libertarian, but they are too wimpy in my state for my taste. So, to call me a passive-aggressive closet Republican is to just insult me. It would be just as bad as to call me a Democrat. I am registered as an independent.

I will stand up for Obama when someone insults him just like I stood up for Bush when someone insulted him. I simple believe in never insulting the president, ever.

However, I find it far game to blame the current president for the economy from day one. That is just how I am. If you think that is unfair, then change the political reality that we live in today, and I will do what I can to help.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I find it far game to blame the current president for the economy from day one. That is just how I am.

You define yourself as being a totally irrational person?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You define yourself as being a totally irrational person?

Politics today have nothing to do with rational. Please keep in mind that I believe that both parties have screwed the US over to the point where we are today.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I find it far game to blame the current president for the economy from day one. That is just how I am. If you think that is unfair, then change the political reality that we live in today, and I will do what I can to help.

Okay... then see my 'head-in-the-ass' comment. Why stop there though?

Why not blame Obama for the misshaps in Iraq due to poor leadership and foresight or anything else (good or bad) that happened under Bush, for that matter?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Politics today have nothing to do with rational. Please keep in mind that I believe that both parties have screwed the US over to the point where we are today.

But let me guess third party X would have us completely out of this recession and we'd all being wearing togas as we dance in our crystal towers?

Barney Frank is to blame more then anyone else, IMO. Anyone that pushed the sub prime housing agenda on banks should take most of the blame, it just so happens that was the Democrats.

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay... then see my 'head-in-the-ass' comment. Why stop there though?

Why not blame Obama for the misshaps in Iraq due to poor leadership and foresight or anything else (good or bad) that happened under Bush, for that matter?

People have the right to do that. Please understand that I am not telling you that I believe that Obama is to blame or not. All I am telling you is that it is fair game because the people in power now did that same thing to the people in power in the past. In this case the Dems set the bar low, therefore the Repubs have every right to meet that low standard.

I have told you what I personally believe, and it has nothing to do with Obama.

I could wish that things were different, or I could even stick my head up my ass and pretend that everything is flowers and rainbows.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Politics today have nothing to do with rational. Please keep in mind that I believe that both parties have screwed the US over to the point where we are today.



That's something the masses obviously don't get. Unless we can start putting true outsiders in Washington and not just the whitehouse we will never get REAL change.

Notice how the "stimulus" bill just passed loaded with earmarks (read pork) from both parties.

It will do nothing other than add to our already enormous national debt. It's business as usual. All the "change" we kept hearing about during the campaign was just a hollow campaign promise.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But let me guess third party X would have us completely out of this recession and we'd all being wearing togas as we dance in our crystal towers?

I'm a realist. You have been reading things from me for years now. Were did you ever think I would be saying that?

Originally posted by KidRock
Barney Frank is to blame more then anyone else, IMO. Anyone that pushed the sub prime housing agenda on banks should take most of the blame, it just so happens that was the Democrats.

Why not blame the banks for their poor business sense?

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop right there, have you factored in how long Obama has been in office and what effect the "Obama Economy" could have on the previous "Bush Economy" in said time-span?


Obamanomics is betting everything on this stimulus bill. He doesn't have a Plan B.

I don't understand how anyone can run out of people to blame for this, I can draw up a list of guilty parties easily.

ZOMG DA OBAMAZ WARZ!

I think we cannot judge how Obama's actions will influence 'Merica, what we can do is draw predictions based on past experiences and compare what Obama said during the campagin, and what Obama is doing now.


Although, one of the smartest things about politics I ever heard came from Saddam Hussain. He said:
''Politics is saying one thing, while thinking another and end up doing something complitley different.''

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop right there, have you factored in how long Obama has been in office and what effect the "Obama Economy" could have on the previous "Bush Economy" in said time-span?

Na, you didn't.

The Dow has been jumping up and down for months now, and been on a steady decline long before Obama. Give it some time before you say "Obama did it."

That it just stupid politics right there...

Originally posted by KidRock
The Obama Economy

As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.


As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.


The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.

WAOxY_nHdew&feature=PlayList&p=63D2D97DC905AD52&playnext=1&index=5

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That it just stupid politics right there...

Care to extrapolate on that?

All else being equal, over the last 28 years, Republicans have been 71% to blame; democrats, 29%.

Originally posted by Mindship
All else being equal, over the last 28 years, Republicans have been 71% to blame; democrats, 29%.

Is this going by how long each party has respectively controlled the houses or ???

Originally posted by Robtard
Care to extrapolate on that?

Why o-why would a republican miss an opportunity to smash the Obama administration? The accusation might not stand up to scrutiny...but it politics mud sticks.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop right there, have you factored in how long Obama has been in office and what effect the "Obama Economy" could have on the previous "Bush Economy" in said time-span?

Na, you didn't.

The Dow has been jumping up and down for months now, and been on a steady decline long before Obama. Give it some time before you say "Obama did it."

Robtard is absolutely correct. It takes anywhere from 4-6 years of a presidents administration to have a noticable policy effect.




Now, true that some things a president does can immediately affect the economy...but that really isn't the case. (LOL, I used affect and effect correctly in back to back sentences. Hoooray for American English speakers! )

The latest large drop in the Dow is due to forth quarter financial reports for AIG. AIG lost more money in a quarter than many nations annual GDP.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why o-why would a republican miss an opportunity to smash the Obama administration? The accusation might not stand up to scrutiny...but it politics mud sticks.

There's a different between "smashing" and outright nonsense. The very least, wait until at least one person cashes their stimulus check.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a different between "smashing" and outright nonsense. The very least, wait until at least one person cashes their stimulus check.

Do you think that people are going to get checks?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you think that people are going to get checks?

I will if I get one, or maybe a fat tax cut that won't make a difference to the tax bracket I'm in.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a different between "smashing" and outright nonsense. The very least, wait until at least one person cashes their stimulus check.

You'd make a poor politician.

Originally posted by Robtard
I will if I get one, or maybe a fat tax cut that won't make a difference to the tax bracket I'm in.

So, you are just guessing about a check?

Originally posted by Robtard
Is this going by how long each party has respectively controlled the houses or ??? 20 years of Repub presidents vs 8 of Dems. The buck stopped much more with the former.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you are just guessing about a check?

Not guessing, but I'm not spending money I don't have until I physically have it.

Just like my California tax return, I'm not basing anything financial on a check that I may not get.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You'd make a poor politician.

Agreed, I'm an expert liar, but I have trouble being dishonest with people. I'd also make a piss-poor cars salesman.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not guessing, but I'm not spending money I don't have until I physically have it.

Just like my California tax return, I'm not basing anything financial on a check that I may not get.

I have not heard anything about people getting checks.

Originally posted by Mindship
20 years of Repub presidents vs 8 of Dems. The buck stopped much more with the former.

That's what I thought you were using as the unit of measure; I agree. Congress controls the purse-strings; not the President.

Any President can ask for money on a failed concept, it's congress who ultimately writes the check(at our expense). E.G. "Space Platform".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why not blame the banks for their poor business sense?

What poor business sense?

Originally posted by KidRock
What poor business sense?

Well typically when your business goes under it means you weren't doing a very good job.

Originally posted by KidRock
What poor business sense?




Seriously?




I shouldn't be so quick to criticize you, though. Go ahead and explain what you mean before I settle with the "wtf" look...

bush is responsible for the current crisis, extreme spending in war, pissing of foreign investors, and allocating greater and greater wealth in the hands of the few/allowing inflation so that property prices for the rich would rise, not encouraging growth, CLAIMING to boast the strongest economy in history{a fact thrown again and again in the face of people being interviewed by fox who were anti bush}, ****ing with the oil supply from iraq and boosting the price of oil worldwide{which is responsible for the current global recession along with the depression plaguing america, as a primary mover of the world market}. yes siree, in his short term, he has increased america's debt by more than twice.

and now republicans wanna blame obama the second he comes into power and point fingers at the stimulus plan cause it redistributes wealth to the poor. granted, neither the man nor the democratic party are even close to saints, but in the last 8 years the republican part has truly LOST its collective mind barring few, that is undeniable. how can sum1 wimply come into power and immedietly fill a ten TRILLION dollar deficit simply by BEING IN POWER. while networks like fox claim that after a year of inaugration the whole blame for the economy will rest on obama, REALLY, how can ANY part fill a ten trillion dollar deficit in a single year while dealing with two wars not of their own making and a truly ****ed nation, all the while being bombarded by domestic propaganda. {not that i beleive the democrats would in time too, seeing as they are corrupt themselves} all this is attempting to do is divert blame yet AGAIN from any responsibility towards the republican party. seriously were at a point in history where i think even if bush had NUKED iraq, fox news would shamelessl agree with his decision and attack any parties who dissented.

{point, despite similar economic policies, atleast the democrats have the decency to try to switch topics or avoid them as opposed to shamelessly defending the indefensible like iraq/afghanistan/pakistan/israel}

Originally posted by dadudemon



Seriously?




I shouldn't be so quick to criticize you, though. Go ahead and explain what you mean before I settle with the "wtf" look...

Poor business sense like Democrats forcing banks to give out loans to people that have very little chance of paying back?

Then those same government bureaucrats that forced the banks to give out the bad loans deciding they might want to take the banks over because they can do a better job managing them?

WTF indeed.


Originally posted by leonheartmm
bush is responsible for the current crisis, extreme spending in war, pissing of foreign investors, and allocating greater and greater wealth in the hands of the few/allowing inflation so that property prices for the rich would rise, not encouraging growth, CLAIMING to boast the strongest economy in history{a fact thrown again and again in the face of people being interviewed by fox who were anti bush}, ****ing with the oil supply from iraq and boosting the price of oil worldwide{which is responsible for the current global recession along with the depression plaguing america, as a primary mover of the world market}. yes siree, in his short term, he has increased america's debt by more than twice.

and now republicans wanna blame obama the second he comes into power and point fingers at the stimulus plan cause it redistributes wealth to the poor. granted, neither the man nor the democratic party are even close to saints, but in the last 8 years the republican part has truly LOST its collective mind barring few, that is undeniable. how can sum1 wimply come into power and immedietly fill a ten TRILLION dollar deficit simply by BEING IN POWER. while networks like fox claim that after a year of inaugration the whole blame for the economy will rest on obama, REALLY, how can ANY part fill a ten trillion dollar deficit in a single year while dealing with two wars not of their own making and a truly ****ed nation, all the while being bombarded by domestic propaganda. {not that i beleive the democrats would in time too, seeing as they are corrupt themselves} all this is attempting to do is divert blame yet AGAIN from any responsibility towards the republican party. seriously were at a point in history where i think even if bush had NUKED iraq, fox news would shamelessl agree with his decision and attack any parties who dissented.

{point, despite similar economic policies, atleast the democrats have the decency to try to switch topics or avoid them as opposed to shamelessly defending the indefensible like iraq/afghanistan/pakistan/israel}

Congratulations, almost everything you typed is wrong. Oil prices causing the global recession? LOL. Please do explain.

Extreme spending on the war? Barack Obamas "stimulus plan" put us more into debt in one day then the war has in 6 years.

And anyone that is still moaning and crying about Fox news being bias needs to open their eyes and go watch MSNBC, it's just as bad, if not worse, then Fox news is in terms of being all over a political parties sack.

Originally posted by KidRock
Poor business sense like Democrats forcing banks to give out loans to people that have very little chance of paying back?

Then those same government bureaucrats that forced the banks to give out the bad loans deciding they might want to take the banks over because they can do a better job managing them?

WTF indeed.




Congratulations, almost everything you typed is wrong. Oil prices causing the global recession? LOL. Please do explain.

Extreme spending on the war? Barack Obamas "stimulus plan" put us more into debt in one day then the war has in 6 years.

And anyone that is still moaning and crying about Fox news being bias needs to open their eyes and go watch MSNBC, it's just as bad, if not worse, then Fox news is in terms of being all over a political parties sack.

nice blanket statement. mind giving any evidence for it or shud we take the words of a mouthpiece for the right at face value? forgive me if i laugh. to start off with, you DO know of the current recession in the world economy do you not, everywhere from japanese carmakers losing over 50% of their sales to china putting in 6 billion yuan into the economy. what is the driving force behind it? rising oil prices are CHIEFLY to blame. not only have they been at record highs very recently, but no other comodity worldwide has shown such a long and continuous high in the world market, energy driven economies have had to pay the price causing a trickle effect in everythign from oil based products to transport and industry causing MASSIVE inflation worldwide{ofcourse you can check the rates of inflation yourself compared to before} and much hardship. any basic economist can tell you that. ofcouse any1 with brains can tell you that tha main economic motivation{and many wud say the CHEIF motivation} for going into iraq was the lucrative OIL.

as for military spending, are you KIDDING ME?! the U S of A spent over 800 BILLION dollars in 2008 ALONE! accounting for around 30% of ALL taxes. shit, no republican complains about THAT, yet when president, tries to jumpstart an economy which has been RAPED for the last eaight years by wealthy republicans, comes along and proposed, what was it, around 900 billion dollars to be injected in a 10 TRILLION dollar debt courtesy of the bush regime, every republican screams bloody murder?! so not only is your information UTTERLY wrong, it doesnt count who created the damn problem in the first place. do you also know that during the bush years, the difference between rich and poor has reached some of the highest{if not THE highest levels} in the WORLD, you know what actually humour me, how much of the country's money does that top ONE percent own?! if the answer to that doesnt justify the economic redustribution than your beyond hope.

as for fox news, please do not be so callous and tell the wrest of the world to GET OVER IT. the problem lies with FOX NEWS, it is a criminally deceptive prpaganda network haveing NO journalistic integrity or fact check, duping people by spewing selective and made up figures and points of view. msnbc is not even a TENTH of the hypocricy and national insult to the truth that fox news is for america. btw, nice try on not actually replying to any of the points made before you.

i dont love american democrats, on the other hand i truly am disgusted by the current state of republican party. just a bunch of corrupt bible thumping, redneck bigots who rent even smart enough to run their own country, let alone, participate in failed empire building ventures. most{not all though} of them, shameless liars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

deficit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States




no but the democrats probably would not have gone INTO the war. and i didnt say they were saints. you are making another mistake by thinking im a democrat. im only saying it lie it is. afghanistan and iraq are messes, made that way because of the bush regime when nobody shud have gone into these crazy wars. now even pulling out is hard, but again, whose fault it that?! and your economics are SEVERELY lacking, or you just beleive right wing prpaaganda too much. THINK about it, if the top 5 percent really were unequivically paying 60% of their income, then would they be able to REMAIN the to 5% and maintain over 50% of the countrie's money for anything longer than a couple of years?!?!?!? ofcourse not, your not factoring in legal tax evasion/exempts/relegious organisations/having factories etc outside the country where the laws dont apply. seriously if you actually beleive the top 5% are paying that money you have another thing coming. rich democrats???????? i mean theyr rich for politicians but surely NOTHING on the oil and gas lobby of the republicans. add to that the evangelical church owners, the alcohol/tobacco and firearms and you have a ruthless party run by self interest with a relegious agenda working under the guise of less government domain and freedom to do business. its disgusting.







msnbc never had anne coulter on as a serious interviewer and correspondant did they?! that is where i draw the line. please do not evin BEGIN to defend fox, as people will refuse to debate with you at this point, that is how vile an organisation fox news is. hannity/o rielly etc, have you ever even SEEN these bastards in action. to any1 who knows about logical argumentation or linguistics or even simple COURTESY like letting the guy being interviewed talk and not being rude to them, wud tell you that they run on NOTHING BUT ZEALOTRY, Lloaded question, interruptions and logical fallacies. they attack guests on their show among other things.

claiming again that everything i stated was wrong is equal to whining. if you cant wake the HELL up even after everything thats happened in the world, then your a lost cause. you can be smug and pretentious as the world burns, but it wont make u right. as i said, the democrats are bitches. but the republicans are the scum of the earth.

Originally posted by leonheartmm


1. Conspiracy Theory, no thanks.

2. Price of oil has been dropping for around 9 months now..am I understanding you correctly in that the market hasn't reacted to the drop in oil yet?

If this is the case then okay, how long in your mind does it take for the market to bounce back with these new low prices since, ya know, the global recession revolves around oil.

(hint: the price of oil, is a reaction to the global recession, not the other way around).

Originally posted by leonheartmm


no, i did mention the housing, but that wasnt the only factor. domestic credit crunches have to be TRANSMITTED to the intenational marker. oil not onlu did that, it ended up serving as a perpetrater itself. or do you honestly beleive that the gas prices for the past 6 years sumhow just HAPPENED?! i dont need to be educated by sum1 so completely blind to everything. and nice one, trying to blame it on clinton, but that boat sailed 9 year ago my friend.

That was the main factor, not oil. How was the credit crunch translated over to the world market? NOT BECAUSE OF OIL DUKE. It was because of all the money and credit backing the mortgages which collapsed. How stupid can you be to blame all of this on oil prices? The price of oil was 140 and we were in a recession, the price of oil now is 40 and we still are and will be. Use some common sense.

And it's easy to put some blame on Clinton. He contributed to the cause of the housing failure. And LOL if people like you wont be putting the blame on Bush 9 years from now after Obama fails.

Originally posted by leonheartmm




REALLY, are you claiming that the deficit wil be thirty trillion by the end of this year?! erm, i gotta ask, how the HELL do u figure that my friend?!?! {on top pf it being completely ridiculous}

military budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

deficit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States


Obama budget proposal would quadruple deficit
Andrew Taylor - The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama charted a dramatic new course for the nation Thursday with a bold but contentious budget proposing higher taxes for the wealthy and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all -- accompanied by an astonishing $1.75 trillion federal deficit that would be nearly four times the highest in history.

Google: Obama to quadruple budget deficit..and enjoy reading the 20+ links.

Not only will he quadruple the bugest deficit, but also double the debt.
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/301413/36/

What a guy.

Military spending?

http://www.slate.com/id/2212323

Obama's estimates for military spending over the next few years are roughly the same as George W. Bush's.

Ruh-Roh! So much for change! Obama regime marches forward..I wonder how much war with Pakistan and Iran is going to cost?




Originally posted by leonheartmm

no but the democrats probably would not have gone INTO the war. and i didnt say they were saints. you are making another mistake by thinking im a democrat. im only saying it lie it is. afghanistan and iraq are messes, made that way because of the bush regime when nobody shud have gone into these crazy wars. now even pulling out is hard, but again, whose fault it that?! and your economics are SEVERELY lacking, or you just beleive right wing prpaaganda too much.

Iraq was a mess and a mistake, I have said this on the forum many times. But saying Afghanistan was is foolish. We were attacked by the Taliban backed Al-Quaida. You really believe we shouldn't have attacked those who attacked us?

And Obama has already said war with Iran is on the table and he IS already bombing Pakistani land.

Again whos pulling out? Obama is leaving half the troops in Iraq that are there right now. And the rest are going to Afghanistan.

What is lacking about my economics? You seem confused about what you're saying.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

THINK about it, if the top 5 percent really were unequivically paying 60% of their income, then would they be able to REMAIN the to 5% and maintain over 50% of the countrie's money for anything longer than a couple of years?!?!?!? ofcourse not, your not factoring in legal tax evasion/exempts/relegious organisations/having factories etc outside the country where the laws dont apply. seriously if you actually beleive the top 5% are paying that money you have another thing coming. rich democrats???????? i mean theyr rich for politicians but surely NOTHING on the oil and gas lobby of the republicans. add to that the evangelical church owners, the alcohol/tobacco and firearms and you have a ruthless party run by self interest with a relegious agenda working under the guise of less government domain and freedom to do business. its disgusting.

Read what I said, you're confused again. I didn't say the top 5 percent are paying 60% of their income, they're paying 60% of all taxes collected in this country. So pretty much everything you said is irrelevant.



Originally posted by leonheartmm

msnbc never had anne coulter on as a serious interviewer and correspondant did they?! that is where i draw the line. please do not evin BEGIN to defend fox, as people will refuse to debate with you at this point, that is how vile an organisation fox news is. hannity/o rielly etc, have you ever even SEEN these bastards in action. to any1 who knows about logical argumentation or linguistics or even simple COURTESY like letting the guy being interviewed talk and not being rude to them, wud tell you that they run on NOTHING BUT ZEALOTRY, Lloaded question, interruptions and logical fallacies. they attack guests on their show among other things.


Fox News is bias towards conservatives, everybody knows this, nobody is debating that so no need to regurgitate your dribble. The difference is there are morons that believe Fox news is evil for being bias while at the same time watching MSNBC for 2 hours a night.

Keith Olbermann is a liberal Sean Hannity..he is no different. And if you disagree it just shows how completely slanted you are.


Originally posted by leonheartmm


claiming again that everything i stated was wrong is equal to whining. if you cant wake the HELL up even after everything thats happened in the world, then your a lost cause. you can be smug and pretentious as the world burns, but it wont make u right. as i said, the democrats are bitches. but the republicans are the scum of the earth.

I am just sick of uneducated fools that don't understand the problems going on and what caused them.

Where do you get most of this crap from? A news channel? The internet? Which shows/websites are you getting this stuff?

are you idiotic?! there is no conspiracy involved here, the whole world knows the war has rather awesome economic benekefits through thw stealing anf control of oil and that american private corporations are intricately involved in it. you might say that it may not have been the primary reason buch went into iraq{and one cud still provide convincing evidence against that assertion} but your blind if your denying the role of oil in the war. and please, if you want to reply with dismissive red neck logic, then i will end this discussion right here and now as there is no point arguing over sumthing the other party simply dismisses with one liner.

{QUOTE}
2. Price of oil has been dropping for around 9 months now..am I understanding you correctly in that the market hasn't reacted to the drop in oil yet?

If this is the case then okay, how long in your mind does it take for the market to bounce back with these new low prices since, ya know, the global recession revolves around oil.

(hint: the price of oil, is a reaction to the global recession, not the other way around).


not the same in the wrest of the world as it is in america, for one. and the market HAS reacted , but you should know that in more unstable/corrupt economies, bringing the prices of things DOWN after rapid inflation is near impossible. the trickle effect remains. but as far as the energy sector goes, yes, that is showing some deflation in the rate of downfall.

hint: credit crunch/housing in america is a DOMESTIC economic issue, how the HELL did that alone translate to the wrest of the world economies?



again, how did that translate into a recession on the international stage my friend?????? and what had the INTERNATIONAL community pissing their pants for the last few years. it wasnt the housing or the credit crunch. it was the price of CRUDE!

so lemme get this straight, your willing to EASILY but blame on clinton after 9 years in a thread with a topic which puts the blame squarely on obama less than 3 MONTHS after he has been in office?!?!?!?!?!!??!



america's gross external debt as of june 2008 - 13.77 TRILLION dollars
america's public debt as of february 2009 - 10.88 TRILLION dollars

1.75 trillion less than 17% of americas public debt and even less than that from the foreign debt.
a 17% increase in debt wud increase the debt by less than 1/5 times, as oppsed to 2 or 3 times as you say. so your information is either out of context, or plain wrong. or r u talking about annual project budject deficit?

no they arent. and bush didnt have the balls to go into iran or pakistan. what makes u think obama wud even think of doing it at a realistic level???? btw, neither iran nor pakistan are like afghanistan or iraq both have nukes, one is a nuclear power and rather trained and formidable military mights.




was any positive evidence given to the international community that the taliban did it? but assuming{and i accept the significant possibility} they did partake in a terrorist attack. the way to deal with a terrorist organisation is internal infiltration, espionage and assasinations or even{but this is pushing it}, targeted missile strikes or smart bomb strikes against their strongholds. even mother ****ing israel doesnt just permanently INVADE all of palestine. consider the number dead/displaced in afghanistan. remember that the taliban have not been defeated and are becoming stronger everyday, remember that most of the dead are innocent civilians, and also remember that number taken without trial or any evidence of guilt to international prisons for torture and other revolting things. then tell me how it is even justified, much less the right thing to do.

pakistan did NOT attack the us{And yes, obama is an ******* for allowing attacks into pakistan, this isnt about protecting obama at all, this is about making those who are responsible TAKE responsibility and not put it on the shoulders of others or brush it away, as republicans are all to familiar with doing} and cooperated to the point that its corrupt money eating military dictator went as far as to bomb tens of thousands of its own innocent people just to make america HAPPY. and the strikes still continue killed predominantly civilians with empty claims of having hit KEY terrorist targets.




then how is it unfair to the top 5% if their collective wealth isnt decreasing at all from taxation. why did u then argue in their favour???





bill maher out this better than i ever could. "you dont have to consider both sides of a debate when one side is absolute bullshit!" the republicans, currently, have terrible oppinion on MANY MANY significant issues, even if both networks SUPPORT the parties equally, its simply true that ideologically, one party is MUCH more evil than the other, decreasing msnbc's crime. and if you read my reply, it had many things concerned with simply neocon/relegious OUTLOOK, which isnt really political on the face of it, their behaviour, journalistic ethic, manners, and fact checking is COMPLETELY ****ed, shamelessly spewing propaganda. you cant in a million years compare msnbc to fox. ok actually, if the republican party stopped supporting subterfuge/corruption/relegion and just became the business/capitalist party and fox news REFLECTED that and supported them, then i cud say that msnbc and fox are compareable, otherwise, NO ****ING CONTEST!!!!!

keith olberman and hannity are the same?! are you friggin BLIND?!?!?!? hannity is an utter bastard, olberman is not only claiming humour, but he is still 20 times the journalist that hannity is. it seems republicans just try and reutter the same arguments presented against them by liberals without actual validity to make it seem like they are being targetted/victimised by the other side as much as they are victimising it. newsflash, its NOT TRUE!!!!!!!

i get my facts from multiple news channels domestic private news channels like geo for pakistan/afghanistan/iraq news, or in the case of domestic news, sumtimes straight from the mouth of senators or ministers in the government. aljazeera english/cnn/bbc/msnbc{sumtimes, seeing as its coverage is limited outside america} for international news. books by people like norman chomsky etc, and the internet wikipedia among other things, and articles from the websites of many large media groups. and for the other side, well, i do get fox news, lmao.

where do you get your facts from??

Hey KidRock

what about the fact that banks were given the ability to sell their debt to other companies, thus loaning more money than they could cover?

From my understanding, they lobbied for and got that ability, and used it with essentially no regard for the consequences.

I think it might be a little difficult to paint this as entirely the fault of the democratic party?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
bush is responsible for the current crisis, extreme spending in war, pissing of foreign investors, and allocating greater and greater wealth in the hands of the few/allowing inflation so that property prices for the rich would rise, not encouraging growth, CLAIMING to boast the strongest economy in history{a fact thrown again and again in the face of people being interviewed by fox who were anti bush}, ****ing with the oil supply from iraq and boosting the price of oil worldwide{which is responsible for the current global recession along with the depression plaguing america, as a primary mover of the world market}. yes siree, in his short term, he has increased america's debt by more than twice.

and now republicans wanna blame obama the second he comes into power and point fingers at the stimulus plan cause it redistributes wealth to the poor. granted, neither the man nor the democratic party are even close to saints, but in the last 8 years the republican part has truly LOST its collective mind barring few, that is undeniable. how can sum1 wimply come into power and immedietly fill a ten TRILLION dollar deficit simply by BEING IN POWER. while networks like fox claim that after a year of inaugration the whole blame for the economy will rest on obama, REALLY, how can ANY part fill a ten trillion dollar deficit in a single year while dealing with two wars not of their own making and a truly ****ed nation, all the while being bombarded by domestic propaganda. {not that i beleive the democrats would in time too, seeing as they are corrupt themselves} all this is attempting to do is divert blame yet AGAIN from any responsibility towards the republican party. seriously were at a point in history where i think even if bush had NUKED iraq, fox news would shamelessl agree with his decision and attack any parties who dissented.

{point, despite similar economic policies, atleast the democrats have the decency to try to switch topics or avoid them as opposed to shamelessly defending the indefensible like iraq/afghanistan/pakistan/israel}

You are right to say Obama isn't responsible for this mess we're in but wrong to say Bush is. 30 years of economic expansion based on debt is what caused is. The government is in debt, the corporations are in debt and the consumers are in debt, something finally had to give. This crisis has it's roots way back in the 70s, way before Bush and EVERY administration since Richard Nixon shares in the blame. Obama inherited this mess, problem is his "solution" is to create yet even more debt which won't work.

hehe the 70s good times cheech n chong at the drive in theater ahh the days.....hey wasnt bush head of the cia back then asked for a 10 million dollar grant to fund genetically engineering an airborne cancer and thus aids came about instead by combining errr...wait man sorry wrong forum..that belongs in the conspiracy forum...though bush family has had their hands in everything for a long long time...

I should add that Congress, moreso than the President, is responsible for this mess and it's been controlled by Democrats more than Republicans for the last 35 years but that's oversimplifying things as well. This is larger and more complex than any one person or even one branch of government. Ultimately it's probably consumers and investors who should take the ultimate blame, wanting cheap products and high returns on investment that weren't ultimately sustainable. But it's easier just to point the finger at one person. We learn nothing from history.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
We learn nothing from history.
then I got an A in world history class for nothing haha J/k...history teaches us many things the most important is how to write history...?!..hehe

Originally posted by leonheartmm
are you idiotic?! there is no conspiracy involved here, the whole world knows the war has rather awesome economic benekefits through thw stealing anf control of oil and that american private corporations are intricately involved in it. you might say that it may not have been the primary reason buch went into iraq{and one cud still provide convincing evidence against that assertion} but your blind if your denying the role of oil in the war. and please, if you want to reply with dismissive red neck logic, then i will end this discussion right here and now as there is no point arguing over sumthing the other party simply dismisses with one liner.


Sorry if you believe the whole "Blood for oil!" "Omg Bush went to Iraq for oil!" garbage..that's too bad. Economic benefits? Again, is that why oil hit its record high during this great surge of oil supply? Do you know what supply-demand means?

Yeah, we went to Iraq for their oil fields, oil fields being bought and used by the Chinese.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html?ref=world

Your logic fails.


Originally posted by leonheartmm

not the same in the wrest of the world as it is in america, for one. and the market HAS reacted , but you should know that in more unstable/corrupt economies, bringing the prices of things DOWN after rapid inflation is near impossible. the trickle effect remains. but as far as the energy sector goes, yes, that is showing some deflation in the rate of downfall.

hint: credit crunch/housing in america is a DOMESTIC economic issue, how the HELL did that alone translate to the wrest of the world economies?



What? The rest of the world is seeing high oil and energy prices just like the US is. Again, oil prices have fallen due to lack of demand for it now. And the mortgage and housing crisis is not just a domestic issue. There is so much money and securities that are supported by mortgages and the loans banks lend out. Once the mortgages crash everything on top comes down with it.

Take a basic economics class, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security

Originally posted by leonheartmm




again, how did that translate into a recession on the international stage my friend?????? and what had the INTERNATIONAL community pissing their pants for the last few years. it wasnt the housing or the credit crunch. it was the price of CRUDE!

so lemme get this straight, your willing to EASILY but blame on clinton after 9 years in a thread with a topic which puts the blame squarely on obama less than 3 MONTHS after he has been in office?!?!?!?!?!!??!



So again by your logic..we should be out of this recession by summer, correct? The world and the United States will be great, back in a nice boom! The price of crude is down, economies will stabalize! It's ridiculous, whoever taught you this needs to be shot.

And no 1 person can be blamed for the crisis, only an ignorant person would put the entire blame on a single individual (like you blaming Bush). In our system of government it's impossible for one person to bear the blame of something. Clinton did play a big part in it, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm



america's gross external debt as of june 2008 - 13.77 TRILLION dollars
america's public debt as of february 2009 - 10.88 TRILLION dollars

1.75 trillion less than 17% of americas public debt and even less than that from the foreign debt.
a 17% increase in debt wud increase the debt by less than 1/5 times, as oppsed to 2 or 3 times as you say. so your information is either out of context, or plain wrong. or r u talking about annual project budject deficit?


Budget deficit and debt are 2 different things buddy my god.

"or r u talking about annual project budget deficit"

Read what I posted and it should be cleaaaar as day.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

no they arent. and bush didnt have the balls to go into iran or pakistan. what makes u think obama wud even think of doing it at a realistic level???? btw, neither iran nor pakistan are like afghanistan or iraq both have nukes, one is a nuclear power and rather trained and formidable military mights.



Obama has already bombed Pakistani land, for your information. He also said military action against Iran is an option.




Originally posted by leonheartmm


then how is it unfair to the top 5% if their collective wealth isnt decreasing at all from taxation. why did u then argue in their favour???


How is it not decreasing? If you make 100 dollars a day, and I take 30 of it, then decide to take 30 more of it, you're losing money. And it's about the hypocrisy of Obama's "fair" bullshit. Claiming how the rich take advantage of the poor, that the rich don't pay as much in taxes. It's all bullshit. The middle class are given jobs by the rich, their benefits and social programs are paid for by the rich and the rich pay the most taxes in this country..yet it isnt fair to the working class?



Originally posted by leonheartmm





bill maher out this better than i ever could. "you dont have to consider both sides of a debate when one side is absolute bullshit!" the republicans, currently, have terrible oppinion on MANY MANY significant issues, even if both networks SUPPORT the parties equally, its simply true that ideologically, one party is MUCH more evil than the other, decreasing msnbc's crime. and if you read my reply, it had many things concerned with simply neocon/relegious OUTLOOK, which isnt really political on the face of it, their behaviour, journalistic ethic, manners, and fact checking is COMPLETELY ****ed, shamelessly spewing propaganda. you cant in a million years compare msnbc to fox. ok actually, if the republican party stopped supporting subterfuge/corruption/relegion and just became the business/capitalist party and fox news REFLECTED that and supported them, then i cud say that msnbc and fox are compareable, otherwise, NO ****ING CONTEST!!!!!



It's pointless to argue, it's anybody opinion. But many people do agree MSNBC is just as slanted as Fox is, or more. Cant deny it.

I'm pretty sure fox is the most watched news channel as well for the record. They must be doing something right. And you seem to know so much about them, so you must watch as well.


Originally posted by leonheartmm

keith olberman and hannity are the same?! are you friggin BLIND?!?!?!? hannity is an utter bastard, olberman is not only claiming humour, but he is still 20 times the journalist that hannity is. it seems republicans just try and reutter the same arguments presented against them by liberals without actual validity to make it seem like they are being targetted/victimised by the other side as much as they are victimising it. newsflash, its NOT TRUE!!!!!!!


Yeah, they are the same. Olbermann's show is an hour of bashing Republicans and blaming Bush for everything. Just like Hannitys is an hour of criticizing Obama. They arent any different. The difference between you and me is I can tell both Hannity and Olbermann are bias and completely skewed to their parties, while you just see Hannity, thus showing your ignorance and own slanted views.



Originally posted by leonheartmm

i get my facts from multiple news channels domestic private news channels like geo for pakistan/afghanistan/iraq news, or in the case of domestic news, sumtimes straight from the mouth of senators or ministers in the government. aljazeera english/cnn/bbc/msnbc{sumtimes, seeing as its coverage is limited outside america} for international news. books by people like norman chomsky etc, and the internet wikipedia among other things, and articles from the websites of many large media groups. and for the other side, well, i do get fox news, lmao.

where do you get your facts from??

All the links I post that actually back up and support my statements.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


However, I find it far game to blame the current president for the economy from day one. That is just how I am. If you think that is unfair, then change the political reality that we live in today, and I will do what I can to help.

I think it is mostly dumb...but you don't mind that.

So how long will it have to be until Obama can take blame for damaging the economy even more (putting us 800 billion more dollars into debt)?

3 months? 6 months? His entire term?


Or is it all George Bush's fault and it cannot be fixed, but Obama did his best and made it a little better?

Just a little smodcast/Conan thinking. Does anyone think the economy would go back up if Obama held a press conference announcing that he had issued an executive order defining outsourcing as a form of high treason (and it kind of is). Then, if at said press conference he took out a large paper bag and pulled the severed heads of Osama Bin Laden, Black Water founder Erik Prince and former AIG CEO Martin Sullivan out of it and showed them to reporters?

Originally posted by KidRock
So how long will it have to be until Obama can take blame for damaging the economy even more (putting us 800 billion more dollars into debt)?

3 months? 6 months? His entire term?


Or is it all George Bush's fault and it cannot be fixed, but Obama did his best and made it a little better?

Soon, soon, don't worry. First it is Bush's turn for a few months for his first stimulus package.



Really though, did you by chance blame bush for the burst of the dot com bubble in 2000?


Originally posted by Darth Jello
Just a little smodcast/Conan thinking. Does anyone think the economy would go back up if Obama held a press conference announcing that he had issued an executive order defining outsourcing as a form of high treason (and it kind of is). Then, if at said press conference he took out a large paper bag and pulled the severed heads of Osama Bin Laden, Black Water founder Erik Prince and former AIG CEO Martin Sullivan out of it and showed them to reporters?

Probably not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Soon, soon, don't worry. First it is Bush's turn for a few months for his first stimulus package.



Really though, did you by chance blame bush for the burst of the dot com bubble in 2000?





We will see. I am still pretty sure we will be seeing "The problems of the Bush administration, 4 years ago!" at the end of Obamas term.


And I was 11 when the dot com bubble burst, I blamed King Bowser and Super Mario

blissful ignorance my friend. educate yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq

http://www.oilempire.us/iraqoil.html




but in the wrest of the world, the prices arent proportional domestically to the united states, surely you know this. tell me this, why did the oil prices RISE to begin with, saying it is due to the credit cruch in the US alone will have economists all over beating you on the head with their shoes. and the gross us mortgage was just over a trillion dollars, kinda LESS dontcha think, for causing a global economic depression. and it seems you have not even read the link you posted. it would clearly prove to you that domestic mortgage and housing wasnt the cause for the global depression we are in. nice try trying to make ME out to be the uneducated party.



WHERE exactly in the things that i have posted did i even give the faintest impression that we should be out of recession by summer. i have been giving evidence AGAINST that idiotic presumption all this time i beleive. nice strawman. and please do not try to attack people who have taught me, since you are largely uneducated on the issues and blissfully ignorant in your own tiny propaganda driven world.

just like no one person can be blamed for the mess in iraq and afghanistan. again, stop putting the blame on other, that has been my point from the start, i dont love clinton, i DO NOT love obama, i hate them, but this is about responsibility. it just so happens that bush started the whole mess and let it continue, his entire team is to blame ofcourse, as are the democrats who stood idly by.



sigh. and your calling ME uneducated. debt is a type of deficit that accumulates. what you are referring to{as i asked you to clarify i beleive} is ANNUAL budget deficit. in which case you have no argument to counteract mine which depends on the total debt of america, ill give you this, it is a nice play on words to deceive though. now educate yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit





you IDIOT, i am PAKISTANI!!!! so i think i can do without your INFORMATION. hes bombed frontier/balochistan province land which is tribally owned not under the gorvernment control. as has the previous and current pakistani government, taking orders from america and under HUGE and majority dissent from the public. the ONLY reason he has been able to do so is because the pakistani governements of the time were partial puppet governments taking huge bribes and other illegal economic and political benefits from america. however, all out WAR and invasion isnt sumthing any government in pakistan would stand for, nor would the armed forces who would put martial law in place if the leaders didnt comply. and ofcours,e iran isnt bought out by the americans, if the american armed forces so much as put a step out of line in their territory, there would be hell to pay for. and obama knows this, heck, bush knew this and kept his distance. so unless obama is more idiotic than red neck shit for brains, it just an empty threat to rally political support.





but you proposed what is your BELEIVED reality of the world. the fact is, the top 5% are GAINING money, and the difference between rich and poor is INCREASING not decreasing. how do you explain that if what your saying is truly happening at face value? i guess what im saying is that the way ur desribing isnt the way its happening and you need to look at reality again. tax evasion/legal loopholes/stealing wealth from abroad/tax exemption/technicalities etc all play their respective parts in making the rich RICHER, whereas it would be impossible without these wrongdoings to make the rich richer in america if they really were adhering to your perceived tax policies in america. so yes, the tax increases are fair. and you really need to read some non propagandist text on communism and socialism and liberal versions of the two. you are again, blissfully ignorant.





but oppinions mean nothing if they arent backed by facts. and yes i can very easily deny it.

fox is porno for conservatives, christians, rednecks and idiots. thta makes the majority of america, so why wudnt it be popular? your mistaking popular oppinion with right oppinion.

no, the difference between the two is that bush and the republican party actually are responsible for the things that they are blamed for and do actually posess ideologies and oppinions based in complete ignorance and bigotry, while the democratic party doesnt{on accoun of not being in power for so long as to not have a significant affect on the affairs of the world and definately on ideology}. as i said, both sides of a debate are not equally valid if one side is complete bullshit. the difference between you and me is that you can not seem to acknowledge this.

and none of the links you posted even give positive EVIDENCE for your assumptions, much less PROVE them. open your eyes, being a republican was never very smart, now though, its downright idiotic and loathsome. be an independant instead with true free market views, atleast that wa i cud actually respect you even if i dont agree with you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
blissful ignorance my friend. educate yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq

http://www.oilempire.us/iraqoil.html




You answer my questions with a Wikipedia of "Economy of Iraq"?

Again, why did the price of oil hit record highs if we were taking on a huge new supply of oil? Oil that we arent actually taking..


Originally posted by leonheartmm

but in the wrest of the world, the prices arent proportional domestically to the united states, surely you know this. tell me this, why did the oil prices RISE to begin with, saying it is due to the credit cruch in the US alone will have economists all over beating you on the head with their shoes. and the gross us mortgage was just over a trillion dollars, kinda LESS dontcha think, for causing a global economic depression. and it seems you have not even read the link you posted. it would clearly prove to you that domestic mortgage and housing wasnt the cause for the global depression we are in. nice try trying to make ME out to be the uneducated party.


The price of oil went up for a number of reasons, like rising demand in India and China. The credit crunch resulting from the collapse of the housing market caused most of the world-wide recession. If you're still arguing the price of oil caused a world wide depression then you're very uneducated, or believing a really stupid person.

How were we in a recession when oil prices were hitting record highs, and we are still in it when prices are dropping to their lowest prices in years? It's just ridiculous how someone can believe this garbage.


Originally posted by leonheartmm

WHERE exactly in the things that i have posted did i even give the faintest impression that we should be out of recession by summer. i have been giving evidence AGAINST that idiotic presumption all this time i beleive. nice strawman. and please do not try to attack people who have taught me, since you are largely uneducated on the issues and blissfully ignorant in your own tiny propaganda driven world.


You are saying over and over again that the low price of oil hasn't reflected in real world conditions yet. You have also stated the price of oil caused a world-wide depression. So now that the price has gone down, we should be leaving this recession once real world conditions apply to the new low price of oil. SO WHEN WILL THIS HAPPEN THEN?

I hate using personal insults, but you really are just one of the least educated people I have come across on the internet.

Originally posted by leonheartmm


just like no one person can be blamed for the mess in iraq and afghanistan. again, stop putting the blame on other, that has been my point from the start


Originally posted by leonheartmm
bush is responsible for the current crisis

LOL..the more it goes on the dumber you look kid.


Originally posted by leonheartmm


sigh. and your calling ME uneducated. debt is a type of deficit that accumulates. what you are referring to{as i asked you to clarify i beleive} is ANNUAL budget deficit. in which case you have no argument to counteract mine which depends on the total debt of america, ill give you this, it is a nice play on words to deceive though. now educate yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit



Not sure why you're giving me the definition of deficit and debt. You're the one that was confused about what I was talking about. But I am glad you went out on the internet and taught yourself something, good job! You asked me to clarify if I meant deficit or debt..when the article clearly stated "BUDGET DEFICIT". Feel free to actually address Obama quadrupling the DEFICIT now, instead of just getting confused and looking up the definition of deficit.


Originally posted by leonheartmm

you IDIOT, i am PAKISTANI!!!! so i think i can do without your INFORMATION. hes bombed frontier/balochistan province land which is tribally owned not under the gorvernment control. as has the previous and current pakistani government, taking orders from america and under HUGE and majority dissent from the public. the ONLY reason he has been able to do so is because the pakistani governements of the time were partial puppet governments taking huge bribes and other illegal economic and political benefits from america. however, all out WAR and invasion isnt sumthing any government in pakistan would stand for, nor would the armed forces who would put martial law in place if the leaders didnt comply. and ofcours,e iran isnt bought out by the americans, if the american armed forces so much as put a step out of line in their territory, there would be hell to pay for. and obama knows this, heck, bush knew this and kept his distance. so unless obama is more idiotic than red neck shit for brains, it just an empty threat to rally political support.


It's still Pakistan you ****. Tribal land or not it's still Pakistani land.

Oh look:http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/03/us_missile_strike_in.php Another strike in Pakistan today.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

but you proposed what is your BELEIVED reality of the world. the fact is, the top 5% are GAINING money, and the difference between rich and poor is INCREASING not decreasing. how do you explain that if what your saying is truly happening at face value? i guess what im saying is that the way ur desribing isnt the way its happening and you need to look at reality again. tax evasion/legal loopholes/stealing wealth from abroad/tax exemption/technicalities etc all play their respective parts in making the rich RICHER, whereas it would be impossible without these wrongdoings to make the rich richer in america if they really were adhering to your perceived tax policies in america. so yes, the tax increases are fair. and you really need to read some non propagandist text on communism and socialism and liberal versions of the two. you are again, blissfully ignorant.


Link? Sources? Back up anything that comes out of your completely moronic brain?

Fact: Top 10% of this country pay 60% of the countries taxes..under Bush.

Fact: Under Obama they will be paying more then 60%, and the poor will be paying even LESS.

Fact: These tax increases will go to pay for benefits that will support..the poor.

Or keep throwing out "blissfully ignorant, dur dur dur" as an excuse for your lack of intelligence in making an arguement.

Or was your arguement "But but but..the rich use loopholes! And tax evasions! and technicalities! This means them paying 90% of the countries taxes is okay!"

You're embarrassing yourself here.

Originally posted by leonheartmm


fox is porno for conservatives, christians, rednecks and idiots. thta makes the majority of america, so why wudnt it be popular? your mistaking popular oppinion with right oppinion.


Read what you just said, fix your grammar and spelling, and decide if you really want it to represent you.


Originally posted by leonheartmm

no, the difference between the two is that bush and the republican party actually are responsible for the things that they are blamed for and do actually posess ideologies and oppinions based in complete ignorance and bigotry, while the democratic party doesnt{on accoun of not being in power for so long as to not have a significant affect on the affairs of the world and definately on ideology}. as i said, both sides of a debate are not equally valid if one side is complete bullshit. the difference between you and me is that you can not seem to acknowledge this.



You're just showing how completely ignorant you're to Republican policy and ideology. Stop regurgitating everything Keith Olbermann says. Go read and find an opinion for yourself.


Originally posted by leonheartmm


and none of the links you posted even give positive EVIDENCE for your assumptions, much less PROVE them. open your eyes, being a republican was never very smart, now though, its downright idiotic and loathsome. be an independant instead with true free market views, atleast that wa i cud actually respect you even if i dont agree with you.

I back up everything I say with sources and evidence. It's not my problem or fault if you choose to disregard them.

This bum asked me for some change...


I told him to ask Obama.














Wait wait...there's another.



My daughter crapped herself...so I called Obama for "Change".

Originally posted by dadudemon
This bum asked me for some change...


I told him to ask Obama.














Wait wait...there's another.



My daughter crapped herself...so I called Obama for "Change".

I had a bum asked me for some change once, and I told him that he was were he put himself, and if he wanted more, he should get a job. He got upset with me for some strange reason.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I had a bum asked me for some change once, and I told him that he was were he put himself, and if he wanted more, he should get a job. He got upset with me for some strange reason.

Yay for conservatism!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I had a bum asked me for some change once, and I told him that he was were he put himself, and if he wanted more, he should get a job. He got upset with me for some strange reason.

I saw this lady, was fairly good looking, sitting on the side of an highway offramp. She had a sign begging for money.

I was like..."Surely there's something you can do with that pretty face other than beg...."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yay for conservatism!

USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!