Poll: More blame Obama for poor economy, unemployment

[Truthmatters]

And the history of recessions in the US proves that regulations work to stablize the economy.

It makes the ups and downs further appart and shallower.

This allows everyone to benifit from wealth growth at the expense of the few.

I want a country where everyone can build wealth not just the 1% at the expense of the majority.

It makes for a sustainable economy instead a boom and bust economy.

If you are correct, then we have some great times soon to come.

If you are incorrect, we will have one heck of a hole to climb out of.

Japan tried it and for ten years and they spiraled.

But yes, we are not Japan.

Are there two "L's" in spiraled?

We are not japan are we?

The whole point is a sustainable economy not a boom and bust economy.

 

[CMike]

Before you stuck your nose in it I was commenting on Rabbi's retarded post that economy was worst when Obama took office, when in fact since his inauguration the stock market improved significantly and unemployment peaked at 10.1 and started to drop recently.

When people say worst since Great Depression they mean stock markets first of all.

No one gives a shit about the stock market when they are unemployed.
You can look at every measure and the economy became worse. Unemployment improved only because of two factors: hiring by the government (which is a drag on the economy) and people giving up looking for work.
But look at industrial production, jobs, GDP (less governmetn spending, which is through the roof), savings or any other measure of wealth and things are worse but just now getting better. And it is despite Obama, not because of him
But I will agree that whatever happens Obama will get the credit or blame, however much he does or does not deserve it. That's just politics.

Once again, the facts ellude poor Rabbi

GDP is UP for three consecutive quarters
Manufacturing and production are UP
Index of leading economic indicators UP 11 straight months
Interest rates...LOW
Inflation....LOW

Unemployment... HIGH.

That's the one that really counts.

 

[Jarhead]

You guys have proven that America isn't intellectually what she used to be.

Exactly, we now have half wits like Nancy pelosi and Harry reid and empty suits like Obama as 'leaders' and people like you applauding these fools.

Tis a shame really.

Glad you see it now.

Like I said earlier.

I applaud no one but the American people for helping those out that are struggling.

We PAY congress and the President to take our money and give it to those that are struggling. Why? I dont have a clue.

History shows we would help those that need it anyway.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go study the GD a little

 

[Jarhead]

And the history of recessions in the US proves that regulations work to stablize the economy.

It makes the ups and downs further appart and shallower.

This allows everyone to benifit from wealth growth at the expense of the few.

I want a country where everyone can build wealth not just the 1% at the expense of the majority.

It makes for a sustainable economy instead a boom and bust economy.

If you are correct, then we have some great times soon to come.

If you are incorrect, we will have one heck of a hole to climb out of.

Japan tried it and for ten years and they spiraled.

But yes, we are not Japan.

Are there two "L's" in spiraled?

We are not japan are we?

The whole point is a sustainable economy not a boom and bust economy.

I need to ask you a question Truthmatters. It is not meant as an insult, but I see a pattern here.

Do you read entirte posts or just some lines?

I ask as I specifically said "Yes, we are not Japan"

Yet that is a question you subsequently asked me.

 

[Jarhead]

Go study the GD a little

Now you have crossed the line.

We are done.

 

[The Rabbi]

Before you stuck your nose in it I was commenting on Rabbi's retarded post that economy was worst when Obama took office, when in fact since his inauguration the stock market improved significantly and unemployment peaked at 10.1 and started to drop recently.

When people say worst since Great Depression they mean stock markets first of all.

No one gives a shit about the stock market when they are unemployed.
You can look at every measure and the economy became worse. Unemployment improved only because of two factors: hiring by the government (which is a drag on the economy) and people giving up looking for work.
But look at industrial production, jobs, GDP (less governmetn spending, which is through the roof), savings or any other measure of wealth and things are worse but just now getting better. And it is despite Obama, not because of him
But I will agree that whatever happens Obama will get the credit or blame, however much he does or does not deserve it. That's just politics.

Once again, the facts ellude poor Rabbi

GDP is UP for three consecutive quarters
Manufacturing and production are UP
Index of leading economic indicators UP 11 straight months
Interest rates...LOW
Inflation....LOW

Facts are not your friends.
GDP is up one quarter, excluding government expenditures.
Manufacturing is up this quarter as people replenish inventory
Interest rates low, held there artificially by the Fed, which was the original problem to begin with.
Inflation low. In a recession. Who'd a guessed it?

 

[Dr Gregg]

If you are correct, then we have some great times soon to come.

If you are incorrect, we will have one heck of a hole to climb out of.

Japan tried it and for ten years and they spiraled.

But yes, we are not Japan.

Are there two "L's" in spiraled?

We are not japan are we?

The whole point is a sustainable economy not a boom and bust economy.

I need to ask you a question Truthmatters. It is not meant as an insult, but I see a pattern here.

Do you read entirte posts or just some lines?

I ask as I specifically said "Yes, we are not Japan"

Yet that is a question you subsequently asked me.

It's frustrating as all hell, isn't it? that's what led to my beef with you on that other thread.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go study the GD a little

Now you have crossed the line.

We are done.

Why?

because you can not answer the questions?

You seem to think Japans solutions were the ONLY way to respond to a crisis.

We do not have to make the same mistakes Japan did now do we.

We can instead use the FDR model which worked.

 

[Jarhead]

We are not japan are we?

The whole point is a sustainable economy not a boom and bust economy.

I need to ask you a question Truthmatters. It is not meant as an insult, but I see a pattern here.

Do you read entirte posts or just some lines?

I ask as I specifically said "Yes, we are not Japan"

Yet that is a question you subsequently asked me.

It's frustrating as all hell, isn't it? that's what led to my beef with you on that other thread.

Maybe. I remember something with you. But I seem to recall you reacting a little differently in return than I did in this thread with Truthmatters.
.
But hey, I sent you rep points the very next day for a point well made if I recall.

Yo. off the record.
Treat me with respect, I will always do the same in return. You have my word on that.

 

[Claudette]

Go study the GD a little

Now you have crossed the line.

We are done.

Why?

because you can not answer the questions?

You seem to think Japans solutions were the ONLY way to respond to a crisis.

We do not have to make the same mistakes Japan did now do we.

We can instead use the FDR model which worked.

No his model didn't work.

WWII happened. Thats the only reason the depression ended.

Jeeze.

 

[The Rabbi]

Go study the GD a little

Now you have crossed the line.

We are done.

Why?

because you can not answer the questions?

You seem to think Japans solutions were the ONLY way to respond to a crisis.

We do not have to make the same mistakes Japan did now do we.

We can instead use the FDR model which worked.

Which model? Wait for a world war so we can sell goods and then draft people to reduce unemployment?
Because that's what ended the great depression. Everything FDR did prolonged it.

 

[Jarhead]

Go study the GD a little

Now you have crossed the line.

We are done.

Why?

because you can not answer the questions?

You seem to think Japans solutions were the ONLY way to respond to a crisis.

We do not have to make the same mistakes Japan did now do we.

We can instead use the FDR model which worked.

I have yet to question your intelligence and I will be damned if I let you question mine.
Have a great day.

 

[hyakku]

First of all, the Constitution starts with a capital letter C. The Constitution protects the rights and liberties of the people by enumerating and giving them legal status. Citizens protect those rights. Governments on the other hand legislate your rights away in return for social securities. Your hand is extended for the entitlements, so your not retaking liberties back from anyone. Take your social cause wristband and write entitlements=slavery on it. As an alternative you could write my liberty is protected by me, not the government.

This is a common problem in Western societies. For some reason people see their constitutions/charters/what have you and their citizenry as separate entities from the government. It's telling that a citizen is a citizen until he becomes a senator, congressman, president, businessman, etc. Once they have some measure of power they are no longer a citizen, but part of the "them" crowd.

It would be interesting to see when this shift took place. American skepticism of government was not designed to make a completely unworkable government, nor do people realize that as population growth and urbanization occurs, its natural that the size of the faculties, facilities and institutional members would grow. That doesn't mean GOVERNMENT is expanding, it should be proportional. That doesn't mean it's not either, but there's no direct correlation between the government building more buildings/hiring more people and actual intrusiveness into your rights.

Similarly, the Constitution is part of our government, hell, its the BACKBONE of our government. It lists negative and positive freedoms, and it restrains certain actions in an effort to benefit the entire nation.

As I said before, I don't care if we have small government, or big government, as long as its EFFICIENT government. That's what should matter, and neither a remarkably small government nor will a large government suffice.

Lao Tzu says the best type of leader is one in which the people are barely aware, next is one who is kind and compassionate, next is one who is feared, and finally one who is detested and disobeyed.

The idea of democracy is to reach a government that embodies the first type of leadership, one in which the people are hardly aware of it. Failing to do this, we should aim to be just and compassionate until we can reach a state in which government is not needed.

We are not at that point as a race, it's just not possible to have no government. Similarly, we have evolved past the point where totalitarian control is possible as well. As I said, our goals now SHOULD be to work towards a less involved, but MORE efficient governing system, but if we stay mired in this nonsensical ideological bickering on our domestic political stage, nothing will progress.

What college or university in Europe do you attend? By the way, your bold printed paragraph above, flies in the face of your prior manifest on government involvement in the economy. Ah, Grasshopper, you must know I have the pebble in my hand before you can even begin to grasp how to obtain it from me.

I actually go to school in Los Angeles, another failure on your part but good try anyway. The bolded part supplements my previous diatribe because, we have fundamentally different viewpoints.

Being unaware of the government is a good thing to me, it means they are un intrusive and that they interact only when needed. In matters of moral hazards for example, government involvement should be high. This is the reason we don't have private security forces or private interstate highways, they represent a moral hazard that, if they are handled improperly would severely disturb our social order and effect the whole of society.

I suspect this is what you mean by "small" government, but this is a misnomer, as government involvement may be high in some areas and relatively low if not present at all in this model that I propose. Government intervention in the economy however, is inevitable, as domestic and international policies will affect the market whether it's desired or an unintended consequence. Hence why I PERSONALLY (this is my opinion) feel that the myth of a completely free market existing in a liberal democratic state like ours has, and always will be a myth. In order to transcend the stagnation that's occurring in government as people continue to try to resist this primary axiom of our economy requires a recognition of the fact that government has been part of our lives since the inception of this country because we wanted it that way.

Elimination of the government wouldn't be salutary for the nation or its populace, making it more efficient would.

At this point I'd also request (though I doubt you'll comply) that you actually present some type of formal argument or point. You've been trying to debase my credibility, which doesn't really bother me, its expected when one's argument lacks force, but I haven't even seen any attempts at a legitimate argument as to the original subject matter of the thread (Why or why not the polls accurately reflect Obama's economic performance is essentially the original debate, in case you forgot).

 

[Dr Gregg]

I need to ask you a question Truthmatters. It is not meant as an insult, but I see a pattern here.

Do you read entirte posts or just some lines?

I ask as I specifically said "Yes, we are not Japan"

Yet that is a question you subsequently asked me.

It's frustrating as all hell, isn't it? that's what led to my beef with you on that other thread.

Maybe. I remember something with you. But I seem to recall you reacting a little differently in return than I did in this thread with Truthmatters.
.
But hey, I sent you rep points the very next day for a point well made if I recall.

Yo. off the record.
Treat me with respect, I will always do the same in return. You have my word on that.

Fair enough. Although I think my initial response wasn't nasty but only when you did it again is when I got annoyed and more nasty.

 

[Jarhead]

It's frustrating as all hell, isn't it? that's what led to my beef with you on that other thread.

Maybe. I remember something with you. But I seem to recall you reacting a little differently in return than I did in this thread with Truthmatters.
.
But hey, I sent you rep points the very next day for a point well made if I recall.

Yo. off the record.
Treat me with respect, I will always do the same in return. You have my word on that.

Fair enough. Although I think my initial response wasn't nasty but only when you did it again is when I got annoyed and more nasty.

I will be more conscious of that nextime.
If I did it, I apologize.

Now, that being said:

Bite me, you left wing loon.

 

[saveliberty]

This is a common problem in Western societies. For some reason people see their constitutions/charters/what have you and their citizenry as separate entities from the government. It's telling that a citizen is a citizen until he becomes a senator, congressman, president, businessman, etc. Once they have some measure of power they are no longer a citizen, but part of the "them" crowd.

It would be interesting to see when this shift took place. American skepticism of government was not designed to make a completely unworkable government, nor do people realize that as population growth and urbanization occurs, its natural that the size of the faculties, facilities and institutional members would grow. That doesn't mean GOVERNMENT is expanding, it should be proportional. That doesn't mean it's not either, but there's no direct correlation between the government building more buildings/hiring more people and actual intrusiveness into your rights.

Similarly, the Constitution is part of our government, hell, its the BACKBONE of our government. It lists negative and positive freedoms, and it restrains certain actions in an effort to benefit the entire nation.

As I said before, I don't care if we have small government, or big government, as long as its EFFICIENT government. That's what should matter, and neither a remarkably small government nor will a large government suffice.

Lao Tzu says the best type of leader is one in which the people are barely aware, next is one who is kind and compassionate, next is one who is feared, and finally one who is detested and disobeyed.

The idea of democracy is to reach a government that embodies the first type of leadership, one in which the people are hardly aware of it. Failing to do this, we should aim to be just and compassionate until we can reach a state in which government is not needed.

We are not at that point as a race, it's just not possible to have no government. Similarly, we have evolved past the point where totalitarian control is possible as well. As I said, our goals now SHOULD be to work towards a less involved, but MORE efficient governing system, but if we stay mired in this nonsensical ideological bickering on our domestic political stage, nothing will progress.

What college or university in Europe do you attend? By the way, your bold printed paragraph above, flies in the face of your prior manifest on government involvement in the economy. Ah, Grasshopper, you must know I have the pebble in my hand before you can even begin to grasp how to obtain it from me.

I actually go to school in Los Angeles, another failure on your part but good try anyway. The bolded part supplements my previous diatribe because, we have fundamentally different viewpoints.

Being unaware of the government is a good thing to me, it means they are un intrusive and that they interact only when needed. In matters of moral hazards for example, government involvement should be high. This is the reason we don't have private security forces or private interstate highways, they represent a moral hazard that, if they are handled improperly would severely disturb our social order and effect the whole of society.

I suspect this is what you mean by "small" government, but this is a misnomer, as government involvement may be high in some areas and relatively low if not present at all in this model that I propose. Government intervention in the economy however, is inevitable, as domestic and international policies will affect the market whether it's desired or an unintended consequence. Hence why I PERSONALLY (this is my opinion) feel that the myth of a completely free market existing in a liberal democratic state like ours has, and always will be a myth. In order to transcend the stagnation that's occurring in government as people continue to try to resist this primary axiom of our economy requires a recognition of the fact that government has been part of our lives since the inception of this country because we wanted it that way.

Elimination of the government wouldn't be salutary for the nation or its populace, making it more efficient would.

At this point I'd also request (though I doubt you'll comply) that you actually present some type of formal argument or point. You've been trying to debase my credibility, which doesn't really bother me, its expected when one's argument lacks force, but I haven't even seen any attempts at a legitimate argument as to the original subject matter of the thread (Why or why not the polls accurately reflect Obama's economic performance is essentially the original debate, in case you forgot).

Your nanny state stupor makes debate pointless. The perception that 0bama is responsible for our economic situation still has consequences. The fact it is a growing perception is not debateable. You can merely speculate how much effect it will have in November of 2010 and 2012. Personally, I hope you marginalize its importance until December 2012.

 

[Xenophon]

We can instead use the FDR model which worked.

Embargo and villify a country until they sneak attack us and a world war breaks out?

 

[hyakku]

What college or university in Europe do you attend? By the way, your bold printed paragraph above, flies in the face of your prior manifest on government involvement in the economy. Ah, Grasshopper, you must know I have the pebble in my hand before you can even begin to grasp how to obtain it from me.

I actually go to school in Los Angeles, another failure on your part but good try anyway. The bolded part supplements my previous diatribe because, we have fundamentally different viewpoints.

Being unaware of the government is a good thing to me, it means they are un intrusive and that they interact only when needed. In matters of moral hazards for example, government involvement should be high. This is the reason we don't have private security forces or private interstate highways, they represent a moral hazard that, if they are handled improperly would severely disturb our social order and effect the whole of society.

I suspect this is what you mean by "small" government, but this is a misnomer, as government involvement may be high in some areas and relatively low if not present at all in this model that I propose. Government intervention in the economy however, is inevitable, as domestic and international policies will affect the market whether it's desired or an unintended consequence. Hence why I PERSONALLY (this is my opinion) feel that the myth of a completely free market existing in a liberal democratic state like ours has, and always will be a myth. In order to transcend the stagnation that's occurring in government as people continue to try to resist this primary axiom of our economy requires a recognition of the fact that government has been part of our lives since the inception of this country because we wanted it that way.

Elimination of the government wouldn't be salutary for the nation or its populace, making it more efficient would.

At this point I'd also request (though I doubt you'll comply) that you actually present some type of formal argument or point. You've been trying to debase my credibility, which doesn't really bother me, its expected when one's argument lacks force, but I haven't even seen any attempts at a legitimate argument as to the original subject matter of the thread (Why or why not the polls accurately reflect Obama's economic performance is essentially the original debate, in case you forgot).

Your nanny state stupor makes debate pointless. The perception that 0bama is responsible for our economic situation still has consequences. The fact it is a growing perception is not debateable. You can merely speculate how much effect it will have in November of 2010 and 2012. Personally, I hope you marginalize its importance until December 2012.

See, we're making progress with you, relating your argument with the topic at hand. You've still got that bias, but hey, we've got months to work together don't we .

You're correct though, this will have consequences. If he can reverse the tide, I find that looking back at many political leaders, they often experience even MORE popularity if initially detestable policies actual provide tangible benefits, than if they would have had mediocre policies with symbolic accomplishments. If he cannot, surely by 2010 and 2012 there will be new leadership, at whichpoint I can only hope they are some of the sensible Repubcs I see, contributing STRONG points to debates in congress (e.g., cross state insurance policies, increased privatization of energy innovation and in some ways securitization [but not all], increased investments into military technology to spur private innovation, etc. ). All of this traditionally conservative ideas (besides the relatively specific one of cross state insurance) are ones I would support to see in our government, but not if their bogged down by idiotic alarmist ideologues constantly campaigning.

 

[saveliberty]

See, we're making progress with you, relating your argument with the topic at hand. You've still got that bias, but hey, we've got months to work together don't we .

You're correct though, this will have consequences. If he can reverse the tide, I find that looking back at many political leaders, they often experience even MORE popularity if initially detestable policies actual provide tangible benefits, than if they would have had mediocre policies with symbolic accomplishments. If he cannot, surely by 2010 and 2012 there will be new leadership, at whichpoint I can only hope they are some of the sensible Repubcs I see, contributing STRONG points to debates in congress (e.g., cross state insurance policies, increased privatization of energy innovation and in some ways securitization [but not all], increased investments into military technology to spur private innovation, etc. ). All of this traditionally conservative ideas (besides the relatively specific one of cross state insurance) are ones I would support to see in our government, but not if their bogged down by idiotic alarmist ideologues constantly campaigning.

You are still seeing the socialist policies of Obama as proper and positive. Hence, your interest in his "turn around". Do you think your unbiased? I sincerely find you oblivious to how entrenched you are in the nanny state.