Great news! Unemployment "down" to 9.5% thanks to Obama!

[GenSeneca]

The president can't spend a dime without Congressional approval.

Perhaps you don't remember Bush saying that without congressional authority he would use executive authority to fund the bailouts.

Or, they could admit that one person can neither ruin nor fix the economy.

But it worked so well blaming Bush... Look at how many drooling imbeciles blame him for this recession.

Propaganda is what fuels politics. If the Democrats are really better at it than the Republicans, then we're likely to become a one party nation.

They own pop culture, Hollywood, TV, MSM, etc. So much for an informed electorate being the safeguard of our republic.

 

[Andy]

Lets see in office 6 months, your looking at a whole 3 months in data, Bill was not signed right away and many parts still need to take effect....So yes lets make judgments on the long term effect of the econ based on 2 freaking months....and put all blame on Obama , I mean its not like Bush can be blamed here all he did was be in charge for all the rest of the time while the econ tanked..

You are idiots in terms of Econ I can see.

That the goals where off 2 months is no abnormal....however I think it showed more how F^&^ we where with the Econ Bush left Him..

Your like people who buy a stock and get pissed if it has performed not as well as you wanted, and want to sell it...after 2 hours.....

Right, so OBAMA saying that his policy will prevent unemployment going above 8% means that we are the idiots? Let me guess everything that Obama does, is proof we're idiots. If he tries to enter a window, that means we're the idiots. When he stutters non-stop during a campaign speech, that's because we're idiots. When he ends up thanking himself at a press conference due to a teleprompter error, that's because we're idiots.

No, here's the clue bigot. The only idiot here is one who has his head shoved so far up his politics, that when faced with undeniable proof that Obama's policies BY HIS OWN STANDARD, have failed completely, blames everyone else for being stupid. That's the only idiot on this thread, bigot. Go look in a mirror.

Only a complete fool would listen to a dipwad claiming that spending $10 Trillion dollars in debt is going to prevent unemployment from going above 8%, then when the money is spent, and unemployment hits 9.5%, thinks that means everyone else but himself, is an idiot.

 

[Andy]

The president can't spend a dime without Congressional approval. Why do you think he gave the so called "bailouts" such a hard sell?

First, the bailouts were not a hard sell to Congress. The first bailout bill sailed through congress, and would have been passed instantly by the house if it were not for the efforts of Conservative Republicans which proposed their own bailout bill the worked through the private market without tax payer funds.

Bush opposed this because he's not as much a conservative as people claimed. He went on TV and made a stink about passing the bailout. So the senate passed another bailout bill, and this time is passed the house too because the conservative republicans feared retaliation at the ballot box if they didn't pass it.

Of course like all idiots who skip on their principals, they ended up being attacked anyway. It would have been better to stick to their guns.

Or, they could admit that one person can neither ruin nor fix the economy. Attributing the current recession to Obama will lead people to believe that any recovery is also due to his efforts.

I disagree with this theory. It is entirely possible for one person to ruin the economy. It is not possible for one person to fix the economy, but it is possible to stop harming it, and allow it to recover naturally.

In the early 90s, a luxury tax was passed on Yachts. The entire US Yacht industry collasped, and within months. In south Korea, protectionist policies were passed on imports, and the national economy crashed. In 1991, Bush Sr passed a large tax hike, and a recession hit. In Japan, protectionist policies caused a major decline in Asian markets for years.

Screwing up the economy is actually not very hard. Recovering is different. A government can remove the taxes or policies that are harming the economy, but only private industry can recover the economy.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Right, so OBAMA saying that his policy will prevent unemployment going above 8% means that we are the idiots? Let me guess everything that Obama does, is proof we're idiots. If he tries to enter a window, that means we're the idiots. When he stutters non-stop during a campaign speech, that's because we're idiots. When he ends up thanking himself at a press conference due to a teleprompter error, that's because we're idiots.

No, here's the clue bigot. The only idiot here is one who has his head shoved so far up his politics, that when faced with undeniable proof that Obama's policies BY HIS OWN STANDARD, have failed completely, blames everyone else for being stupid. That's the only idiot on this thread, bigot. Go look in a mirror.

Only a complete fool would listen to a dipwad claiming that spending $10 Trillion dollars in debt is going to prevent unemployment from going above 8%, then when the money is spent, and unemployment hits 9.5%, thinks that means everyone else but himself, is an idiot.

no there many reasons you are...

Ecpecting a stimuls econ package to work in 2 months then when is not as much as hoped saying it failed...would be one...

 

[BigRob]

Also, just to point out in regards to the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, we heard from President Obama that it was crucial to get the economy going immediately.

In fact the economy was so bad and we were in such dire need of the money that what was passed was a stimulus that spread spending out over 10 years.... maybe it was meant for a 10 year shock to the economy instead of a quick one?

Only $150 billion or so was even allocated for 2009 (to prevent the worst crisis since the Great Depression according to the President) and of that about $50 billion has been spent, and most government agencies have hardly touched the money they got from it.

So, while some people out there are attempting to credit Obama for any turn around whatsoever in the economy, his policies have hardly done anything to date except run up the deficit.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Also, just to point out in regards to the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, we heard from President Obama that it was crucial to get the economy going immediately.

In fact the economy was so bad and we were in such dire need of the money that what was passed was a stimulus that spread spending out over 10 years.... maybe it was meant for a 10 year shock to the economy instead of a quick one?

Only $150 billion or so was even allocated for 2009 (to prevent the worst crisis since the Great Depression according to the President) and of that about $50 billion has been spent, and most government agencies have hardly touched the money they got from it.

So, while some people out there are attempting to credit Obama for any turn around whatsoever in the economy, his policies have hardly done anything to date except run up the deficit.

His policies also hardly are how we got here in the first place...some people fail to recall this was all to Fix a problem, yet give a pass to those in office when the problem started....I agree I would have done more short term, but we need to look at the long term as well, and I think we would only end up with a shot to the econ, but not a fix, if we did not do long term as well.

 

[BigRob]

His policies also hardly are how we got here in the first place...

No one has stated otherwise.

some people fail to recall this was all to Fix a problem, yet give a pass to those in office when the problem started....

Who is giving a pass to anyone? I certainly am not going to give one to President Bush for his TARP debacle any more than I will give one to President Obama for making the situation worse.

I agree I would have done more short term, but we need to look at the long term as well, and I think we would only end up with a shot to the econ, but not a fix, if we did not do long term as well.

This is not what the President said as the reason for why we needed to pass the stimulus immediately. He said we needed immediate help to shock the economy moving again.

And if I was in charge, there would have been no stimulus, no bank bailouts, and no auto bailouts.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No one has stated otherwise.



Who is giving a pass to anyone? I certainly am not going to give one to President Bush for his TARP debacle any more than I will give one to President Obama for making the situation worse.



This is not what the President said as the reason for why we needed to pass the stimulus immediately. He said we needed immediate help to shock the economy moving again.

And if I was in charge, there would have been no stimulus, no bank bailouts, and no auto bailouts.

and if you where in charge there is chance things could be alot worse now then they are now if you did that. Just think what unemployment would be with some failed banks and GM and Crysler.

 

[top gun]

and if you where in charge there is chance things could be alot worse now then they are now if you did that. Just think what unemployment would be with some failed banks and GM and Crysler.

That is the point of the day my friend!!!

The Republicants hand over to the Dems this fully engulfed burning building and when in the first few minutes the fire has only been slowed in an attempt to first just contain it the Republicants say... I thought you said putting water on it would stop it.


For political reasons they can never say... Wow thanks that could have spread to the whole damn neighborhood.

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

Gosh don’t you just love change! If we are really lucky we can all be on food stamps by December!

I think every public employee in California will be on food stamps by Monday!

Obama did run with the promise of Hope & Change!

... but needing SPARE change??

 

[Andy]

His policies also hardly are how we got here in the first place...some people fail to recall this was all to Fix a problem, yet give a pass to those in office when the problem started....I agree I would have done more short term, but we need to look at the long term as well, and I think we would only end up with a shot to the econ, but not a fix, if we did not do long term as well.

Oh right right... so since his policies didn't start the problem, we should all be ecstatic about him making it worse? This is like saying just because Clinton passed the laws pushing sub-prime loans, we should give Bush a pass because he only continued those policies.

Brilliant logic all the way around. Clearly the leftist idiots are beside themselves on how to follow this theory.

No one claimed he started it bigot, we merely have correctly pointed out his policies didn't help anything. And it wasn't a "shot to the econ" either. You don't look at unemployment in the mid-7% range, say with your screwed up blow money everywhere policy that it won't go above 8%, and then have within months, unemployment in the high 9.5% range, and claim:

"Oh well our stupid idiot policy was a 'shot in the econ' but not a fix! duh duh"

Maybe you don't understand this because you are a bigot, but allow me to explain. We are not like you. We never gave Bush a pass. We had fits when Bush passed TARP and bailouts. Just because Bush did something, doesn't me we support what he did.... unlike you and Obama.

Here you are trying to give Obama a pass for doing EXACTLY what Bush did, only worse. He's blown more money, fixed nothing, and his policies have failed to do what *OBAMA SAID THEY WOULD DO*. Yet you are here defending him? You are the hypocrite, not us. You are the bigot, not us. You are the one with your head stuck in the sand, when Obama's policies failed to do what OBAMA SAID they would do, not us.

 

[PLC1]

First, the bailouts were not a hard sell to Congress. The first bailout bill sailed through congress, and would have been passed instantly by the house if it were not for the efforts of Conservative Republicans which proposed their own bailout bill the worked through the private market without tax payer funds.

Bush opposed this because he's not as much a conservative as people claimed. He went on TV and made a stink about passing the bailout. So the senate passed another bailout bill, and this time is passed the house too because the conservative republicans feared retaliation at the ballot box if they didn't pass it.

Of course like all idiots who skip on their principals, they ended up being attacked anyway. It would have been better to stick to their guns.



I disagree with this theory. It is entirely possible for one person to ruin the economy. It is not possible for one person to fix the economy, but it is possible to stop harming it, and allow it to recover naturally.

In the early 90s, a luxury tax was passed on Yachts. The entire US Yacht industry collasped, and within months. In south Korea, protectionist policies were passed on imports, and the national economy crashed. In 1991, Bush Sr passed a large tax hike, and a recession hit. In Japan, protectionist policies caused a major decline in Asian markets for years.

Screwing up the economy is actually not very hard. Recovering is different. A government can remove the taxes or policies that are harming the economy, but only private industry can recover the economy.

For my theory to work, it is not necessary for the president to actually be able to fix the economy, only for people to believe that the president fixed the economy.

Democrats can rant that Obama is fixing Bush's mistakes, while Republicans rant back that everything was all hunky dory until Obama ruined the economy with his advocacy of explosive growth of government. Both of said rants are bullbleep, of course, but if people believe that the pres has that kind of power, and if the economy does improve, then it follows that they will believe that Obama fixed the economy. If that happens, then the Republicans will have a difficult time ever staging a comeback.

Beliefs, even false ones, can have a huge impact on human institutions.

Now, if we were totally rational, and understood that your examples proved that the way to discourage a thing is to tax it, then we would tax what we want to discourage.

Do we want to discourage people from making money? Of course not. Therefore, the income tax and capital gains tax should be abolished.

That won't happen of course, because no one believes that it could ever happen.

If we want to encourage conservation of fossil fuels, then tax them. Such a tax wold be a lot more effective than passing CAFE standards and other regulations. There would be unintended consequences to that, of course, but it would encourage conservation.

Do we want to eliminate gangs and discourage drug abuse? Then legalize drugs and tax them. Money so generated would go to make up the gap left by eliminating the income tax, instead of to encourage the growth of illegal gangs.

Of course, none of that will happen, as we re not totally rational.

 

[asur]

PLC1 wrote -

For my theory to work, it is not necessary for the president to actually be able to fix the economy, only for people to believe that the president fixed the economy.

This can't be pulled off long-term as eventually people will realize Obama is
destroying the economy. Now some believe he wants people scared and ready to accept his socialist system.

PLC1 wrote -

Do we want to discourage people from making money? Of course not. Therefore, the income tax and capital gains tax should be abolished.

Republicans believe this mainly and democrats do not.

 

[PLC1]

PLC1 wrote -

This can't be pulled off long-term as eventually people will realize Obama is
destroying the economy. Now some believe he wants people scared and ready to accept his socialist system.

I think you're underestimating the human ability to believe what they choose to believe, despite fact and logic.

PLC1 wrote -

Republicans believe this mainly and democrats do not.

Then, why didn't they abolish the income tax when they were in power? They say that they are anti tax, but they're just as spendthrift as the Democrats are.

 

[asur]

PLC1 - Yes I agree some Republicans wouldn't abolish it and that's why I said "mainly".

- But democrats believe in increasing taxes, which is exactly what Obama is doing. And this is bad for any economy, no matter what else he does. I say tax Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates 99% and collect from them, since they think
poor boys should pay higher taxes. Those cats can still live nicely on the 1% left over.
It'll hurt the economy, but these cats need to put up and there is no fix now.


- Letting the Bush Tax cuts expire is not smart. Taxing anything in this situation is just more of a bad thing.
- Now we know Obama will do the bad thing as it's called CHANGE!