Interesting Article by an Interesting Analyst.

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,751
Reaction score
9,446
Points
2,030
Most liberals are going to blame Bush and say the stimulus was too small. We need to a lot of research on the liberal gene and find a way to inform the future parents.
 

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,806
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
"...the “solutions” being offered by the White House are a doubling down on the failures of the past. The unprecedented reckless spending that led to the first-ever downgrade of the nation’s credit rating has been met not with introspection and a new approach, but with calls for more spending."
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
"...the “solutions” being offered by the White House are a doubling down on the failures of the past. The unprecedented reckless spending that led to the first-ever downgrade of the nation’s credit rating has been met not with introspection and a new approach, but with calls for more spending."
Do you ever think? There is no playbook solution to the fuck up that was George W. Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,495
Reaction score
14,180
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
The snag is of course is McCain would have done much of the same things, presidents run the economy from the same playbook, regardless of party affiliation. And presidents may only implement the policies Congress will allow.

The author makes the same mistake as most partisan conservatives in that presidents have little short-term impact on the economy – we often don’t see the result of a given president’s policies until years, perhaps decades, after those policies are implemented.

Given the severe and comprehensive damage the economy sustained after the December 2007 recession, there’s little or nothing Obama could have done to further ‘damage’ the economy: one can’t make a disaster out of a disaster. And any effort to ‘fix’ such a devastated economy – by Obama, McCain, Bush, or Reagan, for that matter - would be utterly futile.
 

Firehorse

Free Thinker
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
548
Reaction score
77
Points
28
So Obama followed the playbook of Bush ... Got it ... And Clinton was only able to balance the budget because the Pub congress allowed it ... Alright, if you say so
 

DontBeStupid

Look it up!
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
429
Points
48
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I happened to come across an article by a political analyst Derek Hunter which reflects my views 100%. I don't recall reading his other articles, but I am looking forward to it. Perhaps you might find his article as interesting as I did. The following is his link:

It's Mourning in America - Derek Hunter - Townhall Conservative
Fun read by a true partisan hack. He seems to be of the opinion that since things are bad now, and Obama is President, Obama is responsible for every bad thing. Despite this, he offers ZERO evidence to support his opinion and offers ZERO examples of what Obama did to make things worse.

Like I said, it was fun to read a piece by someone who was bent on only trying to assign blame, but over all, it's crap.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
The snag is of course is McCain would have done much of the same things, presidents run the economy from the same playbook, regardless of party affiliation. And presidents may only implement the policies Congress will allow.

The author makes the same mistake as most partisan conservatives in that presidents have little short-term impact on the economy – we often don’t see the result of a given president’s policies until years, perhaps decades, after those policies are implemented.

Given the severe and comprehensive damage the economy sustained after the December 2007 recession, there’s little or nothing Obama could have done to further ‘damage’ the economy: one can’t make a disaster out of a disaster. And any effort to ‘fix’ such a devastated economy – by Obama, McCain, Bush, or Reagan, for that matter - would be utterly futile.
If McCain would have done the same thing why do you support Obama? I thought everyone who voted for him wanted change.

Presidential administrations actually have quite a bit impact on short term economic cycles. it is the long term ones they have difficulty managing. Reagan's policies had enough immediate impact on the economy that he was able to get reelected based on them, and the fact that everyone could see that things were getting better. Obama's, on the other hand, have failed miserably.
 

DontBeStupid

Look it up!
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
429
Points
48
Location
Los Angeles, CA
The snag is of course is McCain would have done much of the same things, presidents run the economy from the same playbook, regardless of party affiliation. And presidents may only implement the policies Congress will allow.

The author makes the same mistake as most partisan conservatives in that presidents have little short-term impact on the economy – we often don’t see the result of a given president’s policies until years, perhaps decades, after those policies are implemented.

Given the severe and comprehensive damage the economy sustained after the December 2007 recession, there’s little or nothing Obama could have done to further ‘damage’ the economy: one can’t make a disaster out of a disaster. And any effort to ‘fix’ such a devastated economy – by Obama, McCain, Bush, or Reagan, for that matter - would be utterly futile.
If McCain would have done the same thing why do you support Obama? I thought everyone who voted for him wanted change.

Presidential administrations actually have quite a bit impact on short term economic cycles. it is the long term ones they have difficulty managing. Reagan's policies had enough immediate impact on the economy that he was able to get reelected based on them, and the fact that everyone could see that things were getting better. Obama's, on the other hand, have failed miserably.
Hmm. Obama's policies failed miserably huh? So, we lost the auto industry? We have 11% unemployment? The economy is shrinking? Fewer people have health insurance?

No?

Hmm.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
"...the “solutions” being offered by the White House are a doubling down on the failures of the past. The unprecedented reckless spending that led to the first-ever downgrade of the nation’s credit rating has been met not with introspection and a new approach, but with calls for more spending."
Do you ever think? There is no playbook solution to the fuck up that was George W. Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
So Obama had no plan when he ran?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl5Dai6Dduo]Obama Slams McCain's Economic Policies - YouTube[/ame]
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
The snag is of course is McCain would have done much of the same things, presidents run the economy from the same playbook, regardless of party affiliation. And presidents may only implement the policies Congress will allow.

The author makes the same mistake as most partisan conservatives in that presidents have little short-term impact on the economy – we often don’t see the result of a given president’s policies until years, perhaps decades, after those policies are implemented.

Given the severe and comprehensive damage the economy sustained after the December 2007 recession, there’s little or nothing Obama could have done to further ‘damage’ the economy: one can’t make a disaster out of a disaster. And any effort to ‘fix’ such a devastated economy – by Obama, McCain, Bush, or Reagan, for that matter - would be utterly futile.
I hear this, as if it somehow excuses Obama's incompetence.
But McCain would not have implemented Obamacare. He would probably have vetoed Dodd-Frank. He would not have pushed global warming. And on and on.
No, this economy is Obama's alone. He had a chance to turn it around but blew it because of blinkered ideology. Now he is toast. He is out of solutions because he cannot think beyond what he has been told.
 
OP
B

bodhisattva

Rookie
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
99
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Most liberals are going to blame Bush and say the stimulus was too small. We need to a lot of research on the liberal gene and find a way to inform the future parents.
I agree.

The Liberal psychosis is real and dangerous.
 

DontBeStupid

Look it up!
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
429
Points
48
Location
Los Angeles, CA
"...the “solutions” being offered by the White House are a doubling down on the failures of the past. The unprecedented reckless spending that led to the first-ever downgrade of the nation’s credit rating has been met not with introspection and a new approach, but with calls for more spending."
Do you ever think? There is no playbook solution to the fuck up that was George W. Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
So Obama had no plan when he ran?
Obama Slams McCain's Economic Policies - YouTube
Gotta love that revisionist history.

Yes, Obama had an economic plan when he campaigned. But, if you're being honest, you would also talk about how the Financial Crisis didn't hit until the last month of campaigning. Obama was not elected to fix the Financial Crisis, but that's the only thing you guys ever use as a bench mark. Kinda funny in a sad way.
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,751
Reaction score
9,446
Points
2,030
Just where was a solid plan suppose to come from in the Obama White House? Hardly a soul with business experience or sense in the room. You got a guy running the IRS who didn't pay his taxes. If it didn't cost us money at every turn, this would be a comedy sitcom. On cable, because it would be worth paying for.
 
OP
B

bodhisattva

Rookie
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
99
Reaction score
8
Points
0
"...the “solutions” being offered by the White House are a doubling down on the failures of the past. The unprecedented reckless spending that led to the first-ever downgrade of the nation’s credit rating has been met not with introspection and a new approach, but with calls for more spending."
Do you ever think? There is no playbook solution to the fuck up that was George W. Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
Yours is the typical unsubstantiated bullshit that can't refute the irrefutable facts in my op-ed.
 
Last edited:

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Do you ever think? There is no playbook solution to the fuck up that was George W. Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
So Obama had no plan when he ran?
Obama Slams McCain's Economic Policies - YouTube
Gotta love that revisionist history.

Yes, Obama had an economic plan when he campaigned. But, if you're being honest, you would also talk about how the Financial Crisis didn't hit until the last month of campaigning. Obama was not elected to fix the Financial Crisis, but that's the only thing you guys ever use as a bench mark. Kinda funny in a sad way.
Wow are you fucking stupid.
McCain, Obama headed to Washington for bailout talks - CNN
Obama was elected SPECIFICALLY because he appeared to have answers to the unfolding crisis while McCain was clueless. McCain had been gaining in the polls until then and when the crisis hit Obama pulled way ahead of him.
But even if what you write were true, Obama had from Sep to inauguration in January to formulate a policy. The Stimulus was the result of that. And we see how that turned out.
 
OP
B

bodhisattva

Rookie
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
99
Reaction score
8
Points
0
The snag is of course is McCain would have done much of the same things, presidents run the economy from the same playbook, regardless of party affiliation. And presidents may only implement the policies Congress will allow.

The author makes the same mistake as most partisan conservatives in that presidents have little short-term impact on the economy – we often don’t see the result of a given president’s policies until years, perhaps decades, after those policies are implemented.

Given the severe and comprehensive damage the economy sustained after the December 2007 recession, there’s little or nothing Obama could have done to further ‘damage’ the economy: one can’t make a disaster out of a disaster. And any effort to ‘fix’ such a devastated economy – by Obama, McCain, Bush, or Reagan, for that matter - would be utterly futile.
It is patently insane to disclaim Obama's disastrous record in the past two + yrs by bringing on moral equivalencies of the past that are light years from being anywhere near equivalent.

Obama's intent is clearly a desire to cause a cataclysmic change from an Enlightened Capitalistic Economy that resulted in America being the Greatest Nation on this Planet for the past 200 years to parroting the failed models of Communism, or Socialism in Europe.
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,751
Reaction score
9,446
Points
2,030
Obama campaigned on anybody but a Bushlike president. Then he came one. Ironic huh?
 
OP
B

bodhisattva

Rookie
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
99
Reaction score
8
Points
0
So Obama followed the playbook of Bush ... Got it ... And Clinton was only able to balance the budget because the Pub congress allowed it ... Alright, if you say so
Obama is a probably a devoted Communist. Obama is most definitely masquerading as a Socialist. That is clearly not who Booooooosh is even in anyone's wildest dreams or fantasies.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top