18 months and still no miracles

[topspin]

If Obama is the shining example of what "higher education" gets us, I'll take a igh school dropout. Obama's about as clueless as they come.

you probably went to Rummell

 

[topspin]

republiklans hate facts as much as they hate the liberal idea of higher education.
What is the difference in the stock market when comparing Dem vs Repub presidents?
What was Obama's first year? Bush's 8 yr average return?

Hint: A rising tide lifts all boats

Comparing a 8 year return with a 1 year return????
What a disengenuous fuck you are.

that's all the facts we have pal, I bet after 4 he's still way higher in return than Bush

 

[Sherry]

I agree that people are feeling left behind by the relief efforts, and I agree that a lot of people are misplacing blame. But as half of you try to make me look ridiculous for saying so, I remind you that the elements for a disastrous contraction of the economy were all present. Banks were failing, credit was frozen, businesses were having their credit lines cancelled resulting in massive layoffs. Massive layoffs result in masses of broke individuals, and broke individuals are a drain on the economy, resulting in more job losses, and round and round we go.

If we're to argue how we should have handled it differently, lets have at it. But undermining the potential of the problem we had, and the much worse one we could have had, is counter productive.

I don't think you look ridiculous for pointing out the obvious. All the candidates ran on a platform that we were headed for the crapper and they would save us. Well so now people will hold the winner accountable.

Obama assured people under his leadership that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. During his recent visit to Wisconsin, with the national average near 10%, he tried the "it could be worse" strategy by telling them at least it's not 12, 13 or 15%, when they actually are near that. He looks like an out of touch fool, and that rests squarely at his feet.

Yes, and it may very well become his "Read my lips" moment that costs him re-election, whether voters are truly voting in their best interests or not. It wasn't a lie; it was a prediction; Just as I believe Bush Sr's "Read my lips" speech was not a "Lie." Unfortunately, unemployment did go above 8%, and stayed there for some time. This does not necessarily mean the path we've taken is the wrong one; That's what I'm trying to point out. So here we're really just 2 armchair quarterbacks; you say Barack is using the "It could be worse 'strategy;'" Has it ever crossed your mind that in fact it's not just a 'Strategy' and that it in fact would have been worse-- Perhaps far worse?

It begins with an understanding of what economic expansion really is; That is, when we say economic expansion happened at such-and-such rate last year, do you really understand what has taken place? If you haven't had college level economics, it's very unlikely that you do (And please, I don't mean to insult you, it's just a question). That said the processes that allow "Economic expansion" to take place (It's really just a massive Ponzi scheme) could very rapidly reverse and result in massive poverty if the right elements are present. I think they were, and to an extent they still are.

Except I'm not denying that it could have been worse. I'm simply pointing out that people aren't really interested in the "what if" and "could have been" scenerios. They just care about the here and now.

I had a liberal arts education, so I was required to take a basic economics course, but people don't need to have a degree to make common sense observations. Obama, Harvard educated, went into this with his eyes wide opened, and he deserves to be held accountable for the success and failures of his administration.

 

[Cuyo]

I don't think you look ridiculous for pointing out the obvious. All the candidates ran on a platform that we were headed for the crapper and they would save us. Well so now people will hold the winner accountable.

Obama assured people under his leadership that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. During his recent visit to Wisconsin, with the national average near 10%, he tried the "it could be worse" strategy by telling them at least it's not 12, 13 or 15%, when they actually are near that. He looks like an out of touch fool, and that rests squarely at his feet.

Yes, and it may very well become his "Read my lips" moment that costs him re-election, whether voters are truly voting in their best interests or not. It wasn't a lie; it was a prediction; Just as I believe Bush Sr's "Read my lips" speech was not a "Lie." Unfortunately, unemployment did go above 8%, and stayed there for some time. This does not necessarily mean the path we've taken is the wrong one; That's what I'm trying to point out. So here we're really just 2 armchair quarterbacks; you say Barack is using the "It could be worse 'strategy;'" Has it ever crossed your mind that in fact it's not just a 'Strategy' and that it in fact would have been worse-- Perhaps far worse?

It begins with an understanding of what economic expansion really is; That is, when we say economic expansion happened at such-and-such rate last year, do you really understand what has taken place? If you haven't had college level economics, it's very unlikely that you do (And please, I don't mean to insult you, it's just a question). That said the processes that allow "Economic expansion" to take place (It's really just a massive Ponzi scheme) could very rapidly reverse and result in massive poverty if the right elements are present. I think they were, and to an extent they still are.

Except I'm not denying that it could have been worse. I'm simply pointing out that people aren't really interested in the "what if" and "could have been" scenerios. They just care about the here and now.

I had a liberal arts education, so I was required to take a basic economics course, but people don't need to have a degree to make common sense observations. Obama, Harvard educated, went into this with his eyes wide opened, and he deserves to be held accountable for the success and failures of his administration.

Well if we're only discussing the court of public opinion, we have no argument to be had. I know Obama is being blamed by plenty. The only question is, why is he being blamed, and does he in fact really deserve all the blame he gets. I could tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty that no matter who got elected, 1. There would have been a massive 'stimulus' (or similar program, perhaps packaged differently), and 2. The economic situation would only be marginally different. Perhaps a little better, perhaps a little worse. That goes for any candidate running, including both primaries, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. I think he would've had the "hands off" approach and we'd be slipping into the 3rd world now.

PS. Love the sig line!

 

[Claudette]

I don't think you look ridiculous for pointing out the obvious. All the candidates ran on a platform that we were headed for the crapper and they would save us. Well so now people will hold the winner accountable.

Obama assured people under his leadership that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. During his recent visit to Wisconsin, with the national average near 10%, he tried the "it could be worse" strategy by telling them at least it's not 12, 13 or 15%, when they actually are near that. He looks like an out of touch fool, and that rests squarely at his feet.

Yes, and it may very well become his "Read my lips" moment that costs him re-election, whether voters are truly voting in their best interests or not. It wasn't a lie; it was a prediction; Just as I believe Bush Sr's "Read my lips" speech was not a "Lie." Unfortunately, unemployment did go above 8%, and stayed there for some time. This does not necessarily mean the path we've taken is the wrong one; That's what I'm trying to point out. So here we're really just 2 armchair quarterbacks; you say Barack is using the "It could be worse 'strategy;'" Has it ever crossed your mind that in fact it's not just a 'Strategy' and that it in fact would have been worse-- Perhaps far worse?

It begins with an understanding of what economic expansion really is; That is, when we say economic expansion happened at such-and-such rate last year, do you really understand what has taken place? If you haven't had college level economics, it's very unlikely that you do (And please, I don't mean to insult you, it's just a question). That said the processes that allow "Economic expansion" to take place (It's really just a massive Ponzi scheme) could very rapidly reverse and result in massive poverty if the right elements are present. I think they were, and to an extent they still are.

Except I'm not denying that it could have been worse. I'm simply pointing out that people aren't really interested in the "what if" and "could have been" scenerios. They just care about the here and now.

I had a liberal arts education, so I was required to take a basic economics course, but people don't need to have a degree to make common sense observations. Obama, Harvard educated, went into this with his eyes wide opened, and he deserves to be held accountable for the success and failures of his administration.

Totally agree Sherry.

Unfortunately its easier to still blame BUSH.

Wonder how long thats gonna work for em???? LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

Since we're talking, Sherry, I don't know what your education level is regarding economics. You could be anywhere from not smarter than a 5th grader to a post-graduate PhD in global economics. However, as we all know without question, without debate, the Rabbi is the smartest person on this board, in every educational discipline imaginable. He's brilliant; a genius, a muse almost. Einstein would blush in his presence.

So please, Ribeye, why don't you share some of your profoundly brilliant insight with us, and explain in laymens terms, "What has actually happened when we have 'economic expansion?'"

Economic expansion means that companies are hiring, that consumer spending and business investment are increasing, and that demand is rising.
None of those things has happened under Obama. We will relive the Japanese experience in the 1990s and get stimulus after stimulus with ultra low rates. Hint, this doesn't work.

Obama's 8% unemployment prediction should have been made on the basis of something other than wishful thinking. So there are two possibilities: He lied. Or his economic advisors don't ahve a clue what they are talking about.
Of course both could be right, and probably are.

 

[bucs90]

I thank Obama, I still have a job. Republicans wanted to ship all of them overseas.

Could you imagine what would have happened if we elected McCain?

He would have finished the destruction of the US that Republicans started under Bush.

I think it's something about the end of the world will bring Jesus back, but it's never been clear why they want this country destroyed. All we know is they have worked tirelessly to achieve that goal.

If there were an award for most brainwashed far left liberal on this site, you'd contend.

Rather than trying to reverse the progressive brainwashing you've endured, allow me to propose you with a math formula:

Past Republicans: Wanted to export jobs.

Current Democrats: Want to keep importing workers.

Exporting Jobs + Importing Workers = What for the American people?

Solve that equation, and you'll understand a portion of the Tea Party message. Both sides suck. We are trying to clean out the right. You need to try to clean out the left. We cannot export jobs while importing workers. The math doesn't work out well for us.

I agree except for one point: We need to educate Americans to prepare them for the talent we IMPORT (thinking here only of the H1-B visas for the high paying scientific and technical jobs, and not lettuce pickers). Conservatives think educating Americans is a dumb proposition and that it should be done by home schooling or private schools that not every kid has access to.

Whoa, not so fast my friend.

Conservatives think educating Americans is a dumb proposition? I strongly disagree. We think that is the most important foundation of our country. Accurate education to be specific. The government run public school system is a failure. Thats fairly easy to say, as a whole. And you say not all people have access to home schooling or private school, but thats not so. Anyone can home school, just some decide not to or don't want to have one parent at home not working. Private school, yes, not everyone can afford.

Thats why the right is pushing for school vouchers, so everyone can access these private schools, or to send their kid to a better public school. BUT......liberal teacher's unions are blocking that. They know school vouchers will equal school choice, and their jobs will depend on the quality or perception of quality of their school. In short, some of the lazy, careless teachers would be held accountable because parents could simply take their kids out of that school. A dwindling student base would equal teachers not being needed there.

Just for example, as sad as this is to say, watching Glenn Beck the last 6 months I've learned far more about the positive and powerful contributions African Americans have made to the founding and success of this country than I did in K-12 or 4 years of college. I know he's supposed to be a racist hate monger and all, but the public school system has failed in just that small example, as I was unaware of the massive contributions they made until watching that show and the history he describes.

So, if the left is truly serious about proper education, the FIRST thing that must be done is school vouchers for all people who can't afford private school. Give them their tax dollars back, and let them pick the school they want their kid to go to. Free market education would hold schools and teacher's unions accountable so our kids don't sit in class watching a movie while their teacher plays on facebook.

 

[Sherry]

If there were an award for most brainwashed far left liberal on this site, you'd contend.

Rather than trying to reverse the progressive brainwashing you've endured, allow me to propose you with a math formula:

Past Republicans: Wanted to export jobs.

Current Democrats: Want to keep importing workers.

Exporting Jobs + Importing Workers = What for the American people?

Solve that equation, and you'll understand a portion of the Tea Party message. Both sides suck. We are trying to clean out the right. You need to try to clean out the left. We cannot export jobs while importing workers. The math doesn't work out well for us.

I agree except for one point: We need to educate Americans to prepare them for the talent we IMPORT (thinking here only of the H1-B visas for the high paying scientific and technical jobs, and not lettuce pickers). Conservatives think educating Americans is a dumb proposition and that it should be done by home schooling or private schools that not every kid has access to.

Whoa, not so fast my friend.

Conservatives think educating Americans is a dumb proposition? I strongly disagree. We think that is the most important foundation of our country. Accurate education to be specific. The government run public school system is a failure. Thats fairly easy to say, as a whole. And you say not all people have access to home schooling or private school, but thats not so. Anyone can home school, just some decide not to or don't want to have one parent at home not working. Private school, yes, not everyone can afford.

Thats why the right is pushing for school vouchers, so everyone can access these private schools, or to send their kid to a better public school. BUT......liberal teacher's unions are blocking that. They know school vouchers will equal school choice, and their jobs will depend on the quality or perception of quality of their school. In short, some of the lazy, careless teachers would be held accountable because parents could simply take their kids out of that school. A dwindling student base would equal teachers not being needed there.

Just for example, as sad as this is to say, watching Glenn Beck the last 6 months I've learned far more about the positive and powerful contributions African Americans have made to the founding and success of this country than I did in K-12 or 4 years of college. I know he's supposed to be a racist hate monger and all, but the public school system has failed in just that small example, as I was unaware of the massive contributions they made until watching that show and the history he describes.

So, if the left is truly serious about proper education, the FIRST thing that must be done is school vouchers for all people who can't afford private school. Give them their tax dollars back, and let them pick the school they want their kid to go to. Free market education would hold schools and teacher's unions accountable so our kids don't sit in class watching a movie while their teacher plays on facebook.

Amazing, isn't it??

 

[Cuyo]

Since we're talking, Sherry, I don't know what your education level is regarding economics. You could be anywhere from not smarter than a 5th grader to a post-graduate PhD in global economics. However, as we all know without question, without debate, the Rabbi is the smartest person on this board, in every educational discipline imaginable. He's brilliant; a genius, a muse almost. Einstein would blush in his presence.

So please, Ribeye, why don't you share some of your profoundly brilliant insight with us, and explain in laymens terms, "What has actually happened when we have 'economic expansion?'"

Economic expansion means that companies are hiring, that consumer spending and business investment are increasing, and that demand is rising.
None of those things has happened under Obama. We will relive the Japanese experience in the 1990s and get stimulus after stimulus with ultra low rates. Hint, this doesn't work.

Obama's 8% unemployment prediction should have been made on the basis of something other than wishful thinking. So there are two possibilities: He lied. Or his economic advisors don't ahve a clue what they are talking about.
Of course both could be right, and probably are.

That's a pretty rudimentary answer. You're in the ballpark. Those things you quote are indications of economic expansion, but they're not actual "Economic expansion."

I'll give you a hint, or maybe just rephrase. Money is intangible, and economic expansion is the disbursement of more money through an economy, including government expenses and net exports. So if money is intangible, and real property and personal property (goods) are finite in quantity, how can an economy "Expand?"

 

[bucs90]

I agree except for one point: We need to educate Americans to prepare them for the talent we IMPORT (thinking here only of the H1-B visas for the high paying scientific and technical jobs, and not lettuce pickers). Conservatives think educating Americans is a dumb proposition and that it should be done by home schooling or private schools that not every kid has access to.

Whoa, not so fast my friend.

Conservatives think educating Americans is a dumb proposition? I strongly disagree. We think that is the most important foundation of our country. Accurate education to be specific. The government run public school system is a failure. Thats fairly easy to say, as a whole. And you say not all people have access to home schooling or private school, but thats not so. Anyone can home school, just some decide not to or don't want to have one parent at home not working. Private school, yes, not everyone can afford.

Thats why the right is pushing for school vouchers, so everyone can access these private schools, or to send their kid to a better public school. BUT......liberal teacher's unions are blocking that. They know school vouchers will equal school choice, and their jobs will depend on the quality or perception of quality of their school. In short, some of the lazy, careless teachers would be held accountable because parents could simply take their kids out of that school. A dwindling student base would equal teachers not being needed there.

Just for example, as sad as this is to say, watching Glenn Beck the last 6 months I've learned far more about the positive and powerful contributions African Americans have made to the founding and success of this country than I did in K-12 or 4 years of college. I know he's supposed to be a racist hate monger and all, but the public school system has failed in just that small example, as I was unaware of the massive contributions they made until watching that show and the history he describes.

So, if the left is truly serious about proper education, the FIRST thing that must be done is school vouchers for all people who can't afford private school. Give them their tax dollars back, and let them pick the school they want their kid to go to. Free market education would hold schools and teacher's unions accountable so our kids don't sit in class watching a movie while their teacher plays on facebook.

Amazing, isn't it??

It truly is amazing. I keep hearing what a racist hate monger he is. Yet.....he keeps disguising it by constantly showing us more examples and facts, from experts, not his own words, of the incredible contributions blacks made in this country from it's original colonial founding, through independence, all the wars, etc, etc.

I can say without a doubt, the public education system is nearly criminal in negligence to inner city and rural black children who are not taught this history, but instead are assured that they will keep being oppressed and owed something from someone else.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since we're talking, Sherry, I don't know what your education level is regarding economics. You could be anywhere from not smarter than a 5th grader to a post-graduate PhD in global economics. However, as we all know without question, without debate, the Rabbi is the smartest person on this board, in every educational discipline imaginable. He's brilliant; a genius, a muse almost. Einstein would blush in his presence.

So please, Ribeye, why don't you share some of your profoundly brilliant insight with us, and explain in laymens terms, "What has actually happened when we have 'economic expansion?'"

Economic expansion means that companies are hiring, that consumer spending and business investment are increasing, and that demand is rising.
None of those things has happened under Obama. We will relive the Japanese experience in the 1990s and get stimulus after stimulus with ultra low rates. Hint, this doesn't work.

Obama's 8% unemployment prediction should have been made on the basis of something other than wishful thinking. So there are two possibilities: He lied. Or his economic advisors don't ahve a clue what they are talking about.
Of course both could be right, and probably are.

That's a pretty rudimentary answer. You're in the ballpark. Those things you quote are indications of economic expansion, but they're not actual "Economic expansion."

I'll give you a hint, or maybe just rephrase. Money is intangible, and economic expansion is the disbursement of more money through an economy, including government expenses and net exports. So if money is intangible, and real property and personal property (goods) are finite in quantity, how can an economy "Expand?"

I'll give you a hint: You are dead wrong on every issue. DOes the term "stagflation" mean anything to you? There was more money through the economy (M1 rose) but no wealth was created.
Money is not intangible. Real and personal property are not finite (how many CAT scan machines existed in 1900?).
You're really batting 1000 here.

 

[MaggieMae]

Most of the independents have caught on that after 4 years in power the democrats haven't a leg to stand on when blaming republicans and after 2 years of NO Bush, Obama may actually be responsible for all the dumb ass things he has done.

Now they will play make believe in an attempt to distract again.

Much as you would like to see it happen, "independents" aren't about to go full throttle to the far right. In fact, it's difficult to gauge independents (real ones) until a few months before an election. They may be leaning further to the right for the mid-terms, but you won't see any commiting beyond that. And by "real ones," I mean just that--not the ex-Bush supporters who suddenly have found themselves in a dilemma because of the FUBAR of that administration and now claim to be independents. Those, and you know who you are, still wouldn't vote for a Democrat no matter who it is. A real independent would.

I love Liberal thinking. hen polls agree with us they are absolutely 100 percent right. When they disagree with us they are biased and wrong.

Something like 70 percent of Independents no longer support the democratic party. Guess who elects our Congress?

I think you need new glasses, Sarge. I acknowledge that Independents probably will vote Republican in the coming mid-terms, but there's no guarantee they will stay faithful through 2012.

 

[MaggieMae]

I can't figure out how you live with yourself.

I've always been able to spot a phony. But I really don't expect a phony to recognize himself, so...whatever.

Wow....Cut to the quick by yet another staggering rebuff!

Uh huh, like your contributions in this thread are so overwhelmingly brilliant and on point. Why don't you actually speak to the issue instead of ragging on me? After all, we all look forward to your Fabian-esque proof for your positions on all matters.

 

[MaggieMae]

Who holds the office of the presidency? Let's just stick with that question, because it is the reality.

Huh? He hardly operates in a vacuum. I don't know what you want "the question" to be.

HUH?

Yet, you have no problem with the "what If's"? I have to laugh at "what If" questions because the imagination is just boundless with them. I like to stick to the "what is, is.

Okay, then what is? The economy is what it is, why? And to fix it will require what? Neither of those questions can be answered by soundbites without asking, but what if?

 

[MaggieMae]

Moral: Beware of False Gods accessorized with Styrofoam Pillars and Teleprompters.

Or aircraft carriers and scythes...

 

[MaggieMae]

Living in a bankrupt country is a lot worse. Both sides are just trying to kick the can to the other party until the inevitable time period comes when the social services collapse and our country goes bankrupt. Neither side wants to be the side that is PROACTIVE in cutting spending because, of course, people will whine and cry about their entitlement being gone and vote them out.

Our system is unsustainable. It's going to have to be cut. No way around it. Conservative values need to be learned, because a time is coming when self-reliance, responsibility and independence will be the ONLY way to get by in our country. Relying on the gov't for one's needs is coming to an end. The only real debate is which party will be in charge when it happens, because neither wants to be the one that prevents it through proactive and gradual spending cuts.

What would make you think our country is bankrupt? We are the wealthiest nation on earth. There is no country right now who is on a good financial footing. Would you like to trade places with China?
We tried those good Conservative values for eight years. Those good ole, self reliant, let big business operate with minimal government intervention, lets remove environmental and safety regulations and let business prosper....we ended up with a collapsed economy and ecological and safety disasters.
The ones who rely the most on the government for its needs are not the poor but the wealthy. They are the ones demanding economic protections, waivers of regulations, tax incentives, relaxation of labor rules...

Please cite the regulations passed by the Democrat Congress and vetoed by Bush that would have averted the things you are talking about. The Dems controlled Congress since the elections of 2006. Every committee. Every dollar spent.

Are you blaming only one party for the melt down?

Have you noticed any thing funny in the fact that Freddie and Fanny are still going strong?

The existing regulations were ignored, specifically by the SEC which allowed all the funny securities packaging to take place at all. Testimony from both Cox and Greenspan confirmed that fact. As for F&F, they got out of the subprime business around 2005, but they still amassed huge deficits too and needed a bailout. They still remain a problem, it's true, and I keep hearing they will be dealt with separately from any private banking financial reform. I don't think procrastinating has helped, so it will be interesting to see how their financial troubles are handled hopefully in the near future. But I don't think they can be considered "going strong."

 

[MaggieMae]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. When will you look at the world today? How many jobs has the Big 0's progam added to this economy in the real world?

Not enough, but more than what would exist without it. You people refuse to look at facts.

How Much Stimulus Funding is Going to Your County? | ProPublica Recovery Tracker

How many jobs were there when the Big 0 entered office? How much money did he spend to create jobs? How many jobs are there now?

This is not rocket science. It's a pretty easy calculation.

But I see you didn't provide the calculation. All I know is that jobs were being lost at a phenomenal rate when Obama took office, and private sector jobs HAVE been added since then. While I realize that's small comfort to the person who didn't get one of those jobs, every indicator says that there is improvement, slow as it is (which was also predicted by just about everyone).

InvestorCentric: Private Sector Job Growth Continues To Be Positive

The economy has created nearly 600,000 new private sector jobs over the past six months. That’s obviously a step in the right direction, and to the casual observer it sounds impressive. But let’s not sugarcoat the results: They’re tepid, given what’s required to a) made substantial headway in repairing the damage from the Great Recession; and b) keeping the so-far vulnerable economic recovery from fading. More than 8 million jobs were lost in the previous contraction, and only a token amount of those positions have returned.

 

[MaggieMae]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. When will you look at the world today? How many jobs has the Big 0's progam added to this economy in the real world?

Not enough, but more than what would exist without it. You people refuse to look at facts.

How Much Stimulus Funding is Going to Your County? | ProPublica Recovery Tracker

That would be your opinion, right?

It's my opinion until proven otherwise, and so far, nobody can.

 

[MaggieMae]

Think what you want, but people looking for jobs or having trouble paying their bills, are not consoling themselves with such thoughts.

I agree that people are feeling left behind by the relief efforts, and I agree that a lot of people are misplacing blame. But as half of you try to make me look ridiculous for saying so, I remind you that the elements for a disastrous contraction of the economy were all present. Banks were failing, credit was frozen, businesses were having their credit lines cancelled resulting in massive layoffs. Massive layoffs result in masses of broke individuals, and broke individuals are a drain on the economy, resulting in more job losses, and round and round we go.

If we're to argue how we should have handled it differently, lets have at it. But undermining the potential of the problem we had, and the much worse one we could have had, is counter productive.

I don't think you look ridiculous for pointing out the obvious. All the candidates ran on a platform that we were headed for the crapper and they would save us. Well so now people will hold the winner accountable.

Obama assured people under his leadership that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. During his recent visit to Wisconsin, with the national average near 10%, he tried the "it could be worse" strategy by telling them at least it's not 12, 13 or 15%, when they actually are near that. He looks like an out of touch fool, and that rests squarely at his feet.

So what would a Republican president have said in those same circumstances? That the unemployment rate will be going to 15% and we're all doomed to return to bread lines? A president can never use negative projections for all the reasons that shouldn't have to be explained.

 

[Sherry]

I agree that people are feeling left behind by the relief efforts, and I agree that a lot of people are misplacing blame. But as half of you try to make me look ridiculous for saying so, I remind you that the elements for a disastrous contraction of the economy were all present. Banks were failing, credit was frozen, businesses were having their credit lines cancelled resulting in massive layoffs. Massive layoffs result in masses of broke individuals, and broke individuals are a drain on the economy, resulting in more job losses, and round and round we go.

If we're to argue how we should have handled it differently, lets have at it. But undermining the potential of the problem we had, and the much worse one we could have had, is counter productive.

I don't think you look ridiculous for pointing out the obvious. All the candidates ran on a platform that we were headed for the crapper and they would save us. Well so now people will hold the winner accountable.

Obama assured people under his leadership that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. During his recent visit to Wisconsin, with the national average near 10%, he tried the "it could be worse" strategy by telling them at least it's not 12, 13 or 15%, when they actually are near that. He looks like an out of touch fool, and that rests squarely at his feet.

So what would a Republican president have said in those same circumstances? That the unemployment rate will be going to 15% and we're all doomed to return to bread lines? A president can never use negative projections for all the reasons that shouldn't have to be explained.

So they should talk out their ass, and then expect not to get bitten in the ass. Yeah, good luck with that.