Obama killing Economy

[asur]

Retail sales dropped 1.1% in March 2009.
The Obama porkulous spending apparently isn't helping.

Of course alot of that money so far has gone to overseas banks, so
the reverse is happening. The US economy is starting to falter badly.

A big drop in auto sales led the overall slump in demand. Sales also plunged at clothing stores, appliance outlets and furniture stores.


Basically this leads to fewer jobs in the future.
Not more.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Retail sales dropped 1.1% in March 2009.
The Obama porkulous spending apparently isn't helping.

Of course alot of that money so far has gone to overseas banks, so
the reverse is happening. The US economy is starting to falter badly.

A big drop in auto sales led the overall slump in demand. Sales also plunged at clothing stores, appliance outlets and furniture stores.


Basically this leads to fewer jobs in the future.
Not more.

Yeah.....everyone's reeeaaallly missin' BUSHCO's economy.

​

December 5, 2008

"Employment figures released today by the Department of Labor show that the economy is reeling and workers are suffering greatly. In November, businesses slashed 533,000 jobs, the largest monthly loss of jobs in 34 years. Unemployment rose to 6.7 percent, the highest level in 15 years. And 200,000 more jobs were lost in September and October than previously estimated."​

 

[pocketfullofshells]

there are little words to say how dumb that post was...retail sales drop1.1% because of Obama? How about they only went down 1.1% because of Obama? what? That's just as possible...and I would suggest far more likely then it went down because of him. but go take some simple econ classes, and come back when you get a clue what you are talking about .
class dismissed.

 

[Andy]

there are little words to say how dumb that post was...retail sales drop1.1% because of Obama? How about they only went down 1.1% because of Obama? what? That's just as possible...and I would suggest far more likely then it went down because of him. but go take some simple econ classes, and come back when you get a clue what you are talking about .
class dismissed.

Funny how you never seem to be able to read what's there without adding in your own spin to it, and then attacking the spin you created.

Did it say retail sales dropped 1.1% because of Obama? No it did not. It said they had dropped 1.1% even though Obama passed his pork filled stealfromus package.

The point was, as conservatives and economists have said many times, before, during, and after the porkulus bill was passed: It will not help. And shockingly... it hasn't helpped.

And this isn't the first time this idiocy has been tried, and had the same negative effect. When FDR passed his New Deal, the result was a massive plunge in our economy, and keep us in the depression for several years longer.

More recently, when European Union, and several other nations, all passed massive bailouts in their respective economies, the same negative effect happened. So now we have foolishly tried it here, and shockingly had the exact same negative effect.

Funny how history and examples around the world all say to not plug your fingers in the power outlets, and yet stupid Americans demand to give it a try.... it might work this time!! ZZZZAP!

 

[Pidgey]

If you wanna' get Obama on something that's more his responsibility, get him for this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13183

Of course, he's just the figurehead and it's Wall Street calling the shots...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

there are little words to say how dumb that post was...retail sales drop1.1% because of Obama? How about they only went down 1.1% because of Obama? what? That's just as possible...and I would suggest far more likely then it went down because of him.

Now, if we could just break Corporate America's (those titans of Capitalism ) addiction to federal-welfare!!!​

"Six months after Washington rescued Wall Street, exasperated banks insist they want to leave the lifeboat.

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase, said yesterday that he regrets accepting $25 billion in federal aid. He called the money "a scarlet letter," pledged quick repayment and renounced further borrowing from the government, saying, "We've learned our lesson about that."

But the company, which announced a $2.1 billion first-quarter profit yesterday, has not entirely had it with Washington. J.P. Morgan said it plans to continue using a separate federal aid program through which it has borrowed more than $40 billion.

Other large banks are attempting the same combination of breakup and embrace. Even as they clamor to exit the most prominent part of the bailout program by repaying government investments, firms continue to rely on other federal programs to raise even larger amounts of money.

Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said the company now has a "duty" to repay the Treasury's $10 billion investment in the firm.

Wells Fargo has expressed a similar determination. The company's chairman, Richard Kovacevich, called the government's restrictions on aid recipients "asinine." The companies must get government permission to repay the money.

But none of the companies have expressed a similar determination to repay the money borrowed through the FDIC, or to forswear borrowing from the Fed.

J.P. Morgan said it planned to continue borrowing through the FDIC program. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman did not return a call for comment."​

Yeah.....we've got some "Great Americans", here.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Funny how you never seem to be able to read what's there without adding in your own spin to it, and then attacking the spin you created.

Kinda like lookin'-in-a-mirror, huh, Skippy?



ZZZZAP!​