Why Obamanomics Has Failed

[Dr.House]

I'd like each conservative here to tell us what they would have done, had they been elected president and taken office on January 21st, 2009.

1. Your plan must bring the country out of recession and create millions of jobs.

2. Your plan must also balance the budget. No deficit spending allowed, since you guys rail against deficits now as they were the plague.

Ready?

Go!!!!

You first...

Go!!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh.............and ps to the curious onlookers in this thread. Note one consistent theme amongst the liberal k00ks. They all LOATH business and capitalism!!! To them, the concept of profit is obscene and they support any candidate or ecomonic policy which sticks it to the capitalist. The question is................why? Is it because its good for the country? Only a committed k00k thinks so...........

Nope...........these people, almost invariably, are miserable failures due to making poor personal decisions in their lives that have left them bitter and jealous of those Americans who are successful. It is the driving force amongst k00ks who support things like governent stimulus, government regulations, government takeover of private sectors of the economy. It matters not to them that millions of families are getting fcukked over by these nutty-ass economic policies. Nope.........the the k00ks, the single most important goal is to fcukk the capitalist at any cost. Its is jealousy and misery that drives these people. Any idiot knows that when government gets out of the way, economic expansion ensues, jobs are created and revenues to the government expand exponentially...........but this is wholly unacceptable to the liberal k00k who is THE model of personal fcukkedupedness and spends his life looking for revenge on those who are successful...................

Doubt me???

Simply look at the post total for the liberal k00ks and tell me there isnt an obsession there? ( one nut on this thread is closing in on 2,000 and has been a member for 3 months ) Id rather call it full fledged rage and utter bittterness. I mean................WHO THE FCUKK has the time to post up thousands and thousands of posts in a single year. This is classic misery.........driven by the hate of people who have made good personal life decisions and gone on to be successful in business or any other endeavor they have chosen to persue. These k00k liberals on this board...........zero interest on the good for the country...........100% interest in demonizing the successful of out society. It levels the playing field for these sorry ass losers......................


PS............check ot those post totals vs start date!!!!!

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/rsz_1puzzled_man_bubble.jpg

I am a liberal that strongly believes in a free market...so why don't you explain WHAT a free market IS? I will BET you have NO clue.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_.jpg

I Love this forum!!!!!

I asked you to explain WHAT a free market IS...

And THIS is your reply...

Yes, you fail...miserably...

 

[The Rabbi]

Great article by economist Alan Meltzer. Many of us have said similar things here but it is nice to see it all put together in one well-argued, well written piece.
Allan Meltzer: Why Obamanomics Has Failed - WSJ.com

Wall Street Journal.....?????

Now, let's see. Who bought the WSJ? Oh year! It was Rupert, the owner of the GOP marketing company named FOX, which calls itself a news channel. Yeah, I am going to really believe his stuff...

Then you should have no problem whatsoever refuting the article. Go ahead.

Oh yeah. That would require knowledge, intelligence, and debate skills and you ain't got any of them.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Great article by economist Alan Meltzer. Many of us have said similar things here but it is nice to see it all put together in one well-argued, well written piece.
Allan Meltzer: Why Obamanomics Has Failed - WSJ.com

Wall Street Journal.....?????

Now, let's see. Who bought the WSJ? Oh year! It was Rupert, the owner of the GOP marketing company named FOX, which calls itself a news channel. Yeah, I am going to really believe his stuff...

Then you should have no problem whatsoever refuting the article. Go ahead.

Oh yeah. That would require knowledge, intelligence, and debate skills and you ain't got any of them.

That will never happen... he lacks the intellect.. of course, he'd probably do fine debating Spiderman vs. Aquaman.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Stocks gained at Thursday's open, building on the previous day's advance, after a bigger-than-expected drop in jobless claims reassured investors worried about the economic outlook."

 

[Cuyo]

Oh.............and ps to the curious onlookers in this thread. Note one consistent theme amongst the liberal k00ks. They all LOATH business and capitalism!!! To them, the concept of profit is obscene and they support any candidate or ecomonic policy which sticks it to the capitalist. The question is................why? Is it because its good for the country? Only a committed k00k thinks so...........

Nope...........these people, almost invariably, are miserable failures due to making poor personal decisions in their lives that have left them bitter and jealous of those Americans who are successful. It is the driving force amongst k00ks who support things like governent stimulus, government regulations, government takeover of private sectors of the economy. It matters not to them that millions of families are getting fcukked over by these nutty-ass economic policies. Nope.........the the k00ks, the single most important goal is to fcukk the capitalist at any cost. Its is jealousy and misery that drives these people. Any idiot knows that when government gets out of the way, economic expansion ensues, jobs are created and revenues to the government expand exponentially...........but this is wholly unacceptable to the liberal k00k who is THE model of personal fcukkedupedness and spends his life looking for revenge on those who are successful...................

Doubt me???

Simply look at the post total for the liberal k00ks and tell me there isnt an obsession there? ( one nut on this thread is closing in on 2,000 and has been a member for 3 months ) Id rather call it full fledged rage and utter bittterness. I mean................WHO THE FCUKK has the time to post up thousands and thousands of posts in a single year. This is classic misery.........driven by the hate of people who have made good personal life decisions and gone on to be successful in business or any other endeavor they have chosen to persue. These k00k liberals on this board...........zero interest on the good for the country...........100% interest in demonizing the successful of out society. It levels the playing field for these sorry ass losers......................


PS............check ot those post totals vs start date!!!!!

I am a liberal that strongly believes in a free market...so why don't you explain WHAT a free market IS? I will BET you have NO clue.

I Love this forum!!!!!

Oh damn Bfg, I guess you lose the argument. He used the word "Fail." As we know, that is the be-all-end-all of any argument; Once someone says "Fail" to you, you automatically lose.

 

[DiamondDave]

"Stocks gained at Thursday's open, building on the previous day's advance, after a bigger-than-expected drop in jobless claims reassured investors worried about the economic outlook."

Yes... because a 15 minute window proves Obama's economic policies are a success

You fucking idiot troll...

When you get a fortune cookie, the message inside says "kill yourself, it's not worth the effort"

 

[JimH52]

The economy is coming back, just not as fast as we would like. It is not a issue of Doom and Gloom as the GOP wants you to think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/bu...s.html?_r=1&hp

 

[The Rabbi]

The economy is coming back, just not as fast as we would like. It is not a issue of Doom and Gloom as the GOP wants you to think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/bu...s.html?_r=1&hp

It is? WHy is unemployment remaining stubbornly high? Why is the only growing component in GDP government spending? Why is everything stagnating? And with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts months away things will get worse, not better.
And btw your link doesnt work. I mean like I can't link to the story. That it doesnt work to support your argument is a given.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

If there IS a correlation between good economic times and low taxes; the Bush tax CUTS were IN EFFECT through this whole collapse...WHY didn't the Bush tax CUTS save the economy?

Ah, the 6 trillion dollar question. I have asked this repeatedly - at least 20 times, but the "conservatives" oops I mean corporatists NEVER ANSWER. They will not and can not because they know they are flat out wrong. The only things the tax cuts did was make the rich richer and push more of the tax burden onto the middle and lower classes. Watch the deflection.

 

[Cuyo]

The economy is coming back, just not as fast as we would like. It is not a issue of Doom and Gloom as the GOP wants you to think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/bu...s.html?_r=1&hp

It is? WHy is unemployment remaining stubbornly high? Why is the only growing component in GDP government spending? Why is everything stagnating? And with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts months away things will get worse, not better.
And btw your link doesnt work. I mean like I can't link to the story. That it doesnt work to support your argument is a given.

Uhh, yes, "Unemployment remains stubbornly high" > "Unemployment rapidly increasing out of control." So yes, although it's still high, the fact that it's gradually improving vs. exponentially deteriorating is a sign of "coming back."

Once again, you can say it's got nothing to do with Obama or dems, but you can't say it ain't improving, as doing so reveals your unwillingness to see the improvement.

 

[Bfgrn]

The economy is coming back, just not as fast as we would like. It is not a issue of Doom and Gloom as the GOP wants you to think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/bu...s.html?_r=1&hp

It is? WHy is unemployment remaining stubbornly high? Why is the only growing component in GDP government spending? Why is everything stagnating? And with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts months away things will get worse, not better.
And btw your link doesnt work. I mean like I can't link to the story. That it doesnt work to support your argument is a given.

WHY haven't the Bush tax cuts, the magic elixir WORKED? They have been in place through the whole crisis!

 

[Mr Natural]

The economy is coming back, just not as fast as we would like. It is not a issue of Doom and Gloom as the GOP wants you to think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/bu...s.html?_r=1&hp

It is? WHy is unemployment remaining stubbornly high? Why is the only growing component in GDP government spending? Why is everything stagnating? And with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts months away things will get worse, not better.
And btw your link doesnt work. I mean like I can't link to the story. That it doesnt work to support your argument is a given.

WHY haven't the Bush tax cuts, the magic elixir WORKED? They have been in place through the whole crisis!

What, you mean you haven't parlayed your $300 Bush rebate check into a fortune yet?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What, you mean you haven't parlayed your $300 Bush rebate check into a fortune yet?

That had nothing to do w/the "trickle down" farce that were the Bush tax cuts and you know it. WHY won't any of you answer this simple question? ANY OF YOU! Where are the jobs??? Why isn't the economy frickin' booming??? Who got trickled on other than the already uber wealthy??? You can't answer because you tards will never admit the truth - they didn't work and they were never meant to. They were nothing but a detriment to our economy. But hey, as long as the rich get richer, screw the rest, right?

 

[KMAN]

Great article by economist Alan Meltzer. Many of us have said similar things here but it is nice to see it all put together in one well-argued, well written piece.
Allan Meltzer: Why Obamanomics Has Failed - WSJ.com

I thought it was George Bush's fault.

 

[Oddball]

If there IS a correlation between good economic times and low taxes; the Bush tax CUTS were IN EFFECT through this whole collapse...WHY didn't the Bush tax CUTS save the economy?

Ah, the 6 trillion dollar question. I have asked this repeatedly - at least 20 times, but the "conservatives" oops I mean corporatists NEVER ANSWER. They will not and can not because they know they are flat out wrong. The only things the tax cuts did was make the rich richer and push more of the tax burden onto the middle and lower classes. Watch the deflection.

There's nothing to deflect...The top 50% of wage/salary earners still pay something on the order of 90+% of total income taxes, while the bottom 1/3 pay nothing at all.

I fail to see how that's pushing any burden upon them at all.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

There's nothing to deflect...The top 50% of wage/salary earners still pay something on the order of 90+% of total income taxes, while the bottom 1/3 pay nothing at all.

I fail to see how that's pushing any burden upon them at all.

Of course you don't.

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle (washingtonpost.com)

 

[Oddball]

That still doesn't address the bottom 1/3 who pay absolutely nothing...Speaking of deflection.

 

[Bfgrn]

If there IS a correlation between good economic times and low taxes; the Bush tax CUTS were IN EFFECT through this whole collapse...WHY didn't the Bush tax CUTS save the economy?

Ah, the 6 trillion dollar question. I have asked this repeatedly - at least 20 times, but the "conservatives" oops I mean corporatists NEVER ANSWER. They will not and can not because they know they are flat out wrong. The only things the tax cuts did was make the rich richer and push more of the tax burden onto the middle and lower classes. Watch the deflection.

There's nothing to deflect...The top 50% of wage/salary earners still pay something on the order of 90+% of total income taxes, while the bottom 1/3 pay nothing at all.

I fail to see how that's pushing any burden upon them at all.

Funny, Bush's first Treasury Secretary doesn't agree. Alot has to do with revenue, you know Jethro, that shit that pays for trillion dollar wars, trillions of dollars of corporate socialism...THAT shit...

Even BUSH questioned the second round of HIS tax cuts, but he wasn't allowed to change his mind...his handlers wouldn't allow it...



Paul O'Neill - George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill.

---

Everything came to a head for O'Neill at a November 2002 meeting at the White House of the economic team.

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

 

[bucs90]

Obamanomics has failed because the left wing voting bloc of this country is so f'ing stupid they would probably even vote for a US Senate candidate whose idea for economic recovery is creating a line of action figures of himself.

Oh, wait, that actually happened: US Senate Hopeful In SC Wants An Action Figure - CBS News