Fitty ..........pass the bucks :Oh crap:2 cents:

Obama is a fucking clown, period.

His plan to spend money on an unprecedented level and go the "big government" route will not do anyone any good.

Every city in the country will look like this....



http://a.imagehost.org/0580/socialscum.jpg

What he's doing is EXACTLY what the democrats did in Detroit, (a city currently in ruins). Spend billions to, "create jobs" and new entitlement programs to "help Americans in time of need". You don't fix a problem by spending astronomical amounts of money that puts a major strain on our growing deficit.

Of course, Obama will keep heading in that direction until we are in a situation that's 10X worse than what Bush has created.

http://americanelephant.files.wordpr...tchart7152.jpg

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...artoonsize.gif

The morons who voted for and support Obama will continue to blame Bush. It's seriously become comical.

You guys think when Bush went to war over 9/11 was bad? Wait until Obama passes his cap & trade tax because of the "accidental" oil spill; it will tax businesses and working class people astronomical amounts of money. Hey it's all to "prevent" a disaster like this from ever happening again.

You are just as ridiculous as a Bush hater.

Now the oil spill is a conspiracy too?

I hope Obama DOES use this spill as yet another huge reason to invest in cleaner alternatives.

No other fucking president in modern history has ever been able to ween us off antiquated fossil fuels, and yet EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has promised to do so!

When an arsonist sets a building on fire, it's the arsonist's fire until it's put out. Rational people don't turn around and blame the fire on the firemen who have to deal with it.

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? It's a FACT that Obama has made his climate agenda a major priority using the oil spill disaster as an excuse for doing so.

It's a political move, only sheep think Obama is some sort of hero trying to do good.

Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers.

Once the government creates a scarce new commodity, (in this case the right to emit carbon) and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. All this in in a time when our economy is in shambles.

Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade.

Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation.

In his budget, Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid, especially in states with higher carbon use.

Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth, but in a that 99% of people overlook. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.

Of course, you don't understand any of that. You just believe the words of Obama's mouth, his agenda isn't noble in the slightest bit, it's quite simply a very evil political move.

No, you didn't use the word "conspiracy"

I used it to describe your obviously biased mindset, and your "conspiracy" theory on the oil spill.

I stand by it.

Lets remember this is the "Summer of Growth" Obama's plan was to spend most of the recovery money this summer (has nothing to do with elections coming up :1orglaugh ).

So if we see no real growth who is to blame? No one but Obama for not addressing the real issue of the failed Keynesian economic policies that have been around for a long time.

Excellent analogy. It was the Bush Administration that passed on to Obama the problems that Obama has to deal with and if the situation is not better/worse when Obama leaves office that is when he will own the mess that is passed on to the next President.

LMAO that's your response to my post? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

No wonder why no-one takes Obama supporters seriously. When it comes to debuting facts they have nothing. The only one with a biased mindset is the one who can't have a discussion and give rational reasoning to support his/her position. Blaming Bush, talking about "conspiracy theories" and so on is not rational reasoning.

Can anyone corroborate: Most of the recent months' added jobs were census jobs?

How long are you gonna keep kicking that same dead keynesian horse?

Near as I can tell, Keynesian economic policies have served this country pretty damn well during most of these past 70 plus years.

Let us not forget that it was primarily ill advised deregulation, and not government interference, that fueled the housing bubble and wall street excesses which ultimately tanked the economy.

Methinks that you, sir, have been watching too many Peter Schiff videos :)

I heard that a few weeks ago.

I would like to add this image to our conversation..

http://net.newsment.com/files/images/Weird-Animals.JPG

Carry on....

95% of recent jobs were government jobs mostly census.

If you think the government and the fed had little to do with the housing bubble, you must be living in a bubble and the only channel you get there is MSNBC :winkwink:

It was 100% fueled by easy money by the fed and set into law by the government. :2 cents:

An abundant money supply is a good thing.

It's the engine that fuels prosperity.

Marketing liar loans with ballooning interest rates to ne'er-do-well's with credit scores in the 50's is another thing all together.

That is true for last month (May), but not the months before that.

Well articulated and informed post.

An over abundant money supply (which is what we had and have now) is rarely good for those who can not and/or should not get loans. They can no longer save to buy the things they need. They are now slaves to the banks and/or government.

To me the housing crash was a perfect storm that came to shore. The fed and government created conditions that made money abundant and getting it easy.

The banks, mortgage brokers, developers etc, saw a chance to take advantage of these sub-primes and sell the hell out of them. Many of these banks (Washington Mutual being a perfect example) gave loans to people who they knew were going to default, but they didn't care. They just made the load then sold the loan.

Everyone upstream from the buyer bought, sold and bet on these mortgages and made a lot of money. Then when the buyers started defaulting the house of cards came down.

Of course the buyers have to assume some of the blame. They went out and purchased homes they knew they couldn't afford and assumed they could either sell them and cash in on the booming market or refinance them before the rate went up only to find out that their shitty credit score entitled them to their sub-prime mortgage, but it wasn't good enough to allow them to refinance and they also learned that they weren't the only ones wanting to sell so the market was flooded.

Realistically, had the housing bubble not happened we probably would have started slipping into the recession a couple of years earlier than we did. I also feel that had this housing bubble not happened the recession probably wouldn't have been as bad because it would have been a slower slide, not a sudden collapse.

Cap and Trade is a prime example of politicians finding a way to raise taxes but telling people it is not a tax increase and that they are actually doing something good for the working class.

http://www.businessinsider.com/krugm...-bubble-2009-6


Bubble FAIL :Oh crap

So it sounds like had their been no housing bubble the recession would have started in 2001/2002

Good post.

I still maintain however that, with stricter lending regulations in place, the bubble would never have gotten anywhere near as bad and might even have been sustainable for a bit longer.

In any case, the subsequent recession would have been as you described and no trillion dollar bailouts would have been necessary.

That is valid for May 2010 ....

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

I think that what he, and his fellow travelers, are saying is that the 2001/2002 recession would (for all practical purposes) have never ended, but that that wouldn't be so bad because things would never have gotten as horrible as they are now either.

It's called being satisfied with mediocrity.

Not a very admirable goal IMO but, given current conditions, I suppose there's an argument to be made for such.

For sure. It looks like they manipulated the markets to help create the housing bubble which created a sense that the economy was doing fine when in reality it was anything but. Kind of like putting a band aid on a cut, but not dealing with the internal bleeding.

Methinks you've missed every single near financial collapse of the 20th century, with that logic.

Who taught you economics? An abundant money supply is NEVER a good thing.

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

Educate yourself. More money in circulation=less it's worth. Basic economics. Just stop typing.

You do realize that this monetary and fiscal mismanagement started after we got off the Gold Standard the final time in 1971 right? This is when the government expanded their currency via printing press, people started living beyond their means, and we moved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. The housing and financial bubbles were just a tip of the iceberg. We were fucked inevitably.

Thinking that "Bush went to war over 9/11" is what is comical. :2 cents:

Blaming Bush for Obama being an epic fail in the eyes of most of the world, an honor even Bush never received, is comical. :winkwink:

Please list the proof that most of the world sees Obama as an epic fail.

Bush was hated all around the globe. When Obama was elected many of those countries that had strained relations with us were again our friends and had positive things to say about him. I'm sure some of that has soured, but somehow I don't think the entire globe sees him as an epic fail.

Well fucking said:thumbsup
Obama is more of the same. He is no common-man champion. The dude is as elitist as they come.

I have anecdotal "proof" that Obama has lost some appeal abroad. I live in Indonesia, a predominantly muslim country. When it looked like he would win the election EVERYONE here celebrated as if THEY were getting the welfare checks. Most of the people I talk with now are scratching their heads because he is still in the wars and they haven't gotten their welfare check yet. Point is he has delivered internationally.... domestically-:(

Actually, moving from a manufacturing economy to a service economy was the real mistake and, admittedly, both political parties share the blame for that.

Absent that huge mistake, genuine prosperity would have been infinitely easier to maintain and those other things you mention would either not have occurred or have been of little to no consequence.

Noted.

The word I should have used is adequate.

To rephrase, an adequate money supply is essential to maintain a robust economy. Conversely, a tight money supply is guaranteed to stifle growth.

Of course, one man's definition of adequate might not correspond to that of another.

I just read this. It is pretty interesting. It looks like in some of the muslim countries he is slumping.

"In Pakistan, the number of Muslims who approve of Obama fell from 13% to 8% over the last year. Among Muslims in Egypt, which receives billions in U.S. aid, support for Obama fell from 41% to 31%, and in Turkey, from 33% to 23%."

I'm assuming some of this has to do with the war in Afghanistan and the way is dealing with (or failing to deal with ) the situation in Israel.

However,
"In Western Europe, support for Obama remains strong. In Germany, 90% believe Obama will do the right thing in foreign affairs, compared to 65% of Americans."

and

"Obama?s 87 percent approval rating in sub-Saharan Africa contrasts with a 34 percent approval rating in the Middle East and North Africa, where anti-U.S. sentiment is more pronounced and where Islam is the predominant religion."

So clearly the entire world doesn't hate him, just the ones who thought he was going to coddle them and found out that wasn't going to happen.

Obama is imperialist, corporatist scum

Thank you. Well said. Funny when 911 happened on W's watch it was bill clintons fault and he wasn't president any more. W got bin laden to attack in the us with planes but that didnt matter it was clinton's fault. W signed the huge bailout and that was a big giveaway to the banks.After he went to war and did a tax cut. Which when John McCain had a spine said to lower taxes during war time was stupid. But this is obama's fault. its too funny lol. Also stop saying liberal because this government is not liberal at all, its gop light. It supports war and big business that's not liberal.Funny the unfunded drug benefit no one called W a liberal or socialist .Hmmm I wonder what is different.

Thats because of this http://article.nationalreview.com/26...ryn-jean-lopez

i hear ya man he talked a big game befor he came in the office about C.H.A.N.G.E this an C.H.A.N.G.E that but i still havn't seen no dam change there are still no job's an still no justice wtf i feel he lied his self into the WH but i do blame Bush for alot of thing's tho

Now I like you but if I posted an article from the daily koz or mother jones what would you say? lol

If we are going to push all the blame for 9/11 and everything Bush did in its wake onto Clinton, can we not then Bush all the blame for the current economy onto Bush?

Here is the reality. If Obama ends up being a 1 term president (and I still don't think he will be, but you never know) and the republican who takes over has economic problems (which they will have because if the economy is fine Obama will be re-elected) then they will blame Obama and the person who is after them will blame them for whatever is wrong. It is the the cycle of how the system works. Everyone blames their problems on the actions of their predecessors.

I get you Kane. What this shows to me is the people most invested in Obama's success feel disappointed. It's been a while since I have been in the good ole USA, but in my travels(Asia mostly), the promise is as of yet undelivered.

I have a feeling that a lot of muslims around the world thought the day he took office he would end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and then help those muslim countries that were poor. I think they also thought he would finally find a way to end the Israeli/Palestine issue. When those things didn't happen they started becoming less and less happy.

Throw in the speech he gave in Egypt that basically told muslims if they want to be part of the world leadership and be taken seriously they needed to be less extreme and bring their beliefs out of the stone ages and I think they suddenly realized he wasn't the muslim friendly guy they thought he was.

Kane, the relations with England and France has been the worst I a LONG time. Sarkozy and the British PM constantly criticize Obama. I'm sure I can find you a lot more European countries.

Did anyone catch this? :( :mad:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...IcIBelOV3k0RsK

:disgust:disgust

According to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_...a/10336164.stm

his approval rating in both England and France is over 80%.

Compare that to this which I took from Wikipedia :?Three-quarters of those in Spain and more than 80% in France and Germany had a negative view of President Bush's role in world affairs."[119] In Turkey, 72% of those polled said that Bush's reelection made them ?feel worse about Americans".[118] In November 2006, a survey taken in Great Britain, Mexico, and Canada showed that they believe Bush is more dangerous than North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

I would say that Obama has been an improvement for our image overseas.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ean-relations/
This article from a few months ago would lead a person to believe that the relationship between Obama and Sarkozy is decent. It seems that he respects Obama, but that he doesn't agree with every little thing he does. I would guess that would be normal for just about any world leader.