Obama stimulus is failed

[Vast LWC]

I think its gonna be a hell of a shitty Q2, our inventories are stacked, I posted a piece a week a go as to Europe is in over inventory as well, and a falling off of orders in response to such as well...consumer confidence took another plunge and housing? its in a genuine double dip.

I would bet right now we will see another under 2% Q.

At least that is your fervent hope.

Way to hate on America.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's wonderful: I hope you continue to compare Obama to Reagan, especially as November 2012 draws nearer:

As you see, Reagan had the unemployment issue whipped BEFORE he was re-elected in 1984: No Doubt Obama will do much better, having spent $$Trillions in Stimulous.

You're right. He did have it licked, after years of double digit unemployment.

But at THIS point in his presidency, that was NOT the case.

And, unless my calendar is off, it doesn't seem to be September 2012 at the moment.

 

[Trajan]

We are 5 months into the REPUBLICAN stimulus plan, remember?

The one Obama got railroaded into signing onto? The 800 billion one, signed into law in December?

Who owns the economy now?

We are now 5 months into the Republican stimulus, the 800 billion budget busting bill passed in December. Yes, the one President Obama foolishly got railroaded into agreeing to.

The Republican Congress is now a co-owner, with the administration, of this economy.

ahh so the reps by virtue of house majority are co owners now, hummm; so, when the house was democratic and the exec. and senate were rep. and they added the 1 trillion in debt.........no 'co-ownership there eh?

when the exec. the house and senate are all democratic and we add 5 trillion in debt, hey anit but a thing....

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.

That's Ronald Reagan complaining about the national debt...

...in February of 1981. The debt then nearly tripled over the course of his presidency.

so now, the exec. is dem. the senate is dem and the house is rep. you scream the reps are co-owners......

just uber partisan blathering, thats all that is, there isn't enough ways to slice that bologna.....

 

[Samson]

That's wonderful: I hope you continue to compare Obama to Reagan, especially as November 2012 draws nearer:

As you see, Reagan had the unemployment issue whipped BEFORE he was re-elected in 1984: No Doubt Obama will do much better, having spent $$Trillions in Stimulous.

You're right. He did have it licked, after years of double digit unemployment.

But at THIS point in his presidency, that was NOT the case.

And, unless my calendar is off, it doesn't seem to be September 2012 at the moment.

No, I think your calendar is correct: Obama has more than a year. Unhappily, for him, but good for US, is the unlikely prospect that Trillions of additional dollars will be spent to keep employment figures below 10% by employing 100,000 Americans at the Department of Funny Walks and Underwater Basket Weaving.

 

[Trajan]

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.

That's Ronald Reagan complaining about the national debt...

...in February of 1981. The debt then nearly tripled over the course of his presidency.

During the Reagan Presidentcy, Dems ran the HoR.

But you still get a point for consistant mindless parisanship.

lets see what Moonbat has to say;

 

[Trajan]

That's wonderful: I hope you continue to compare Obama to Reagan, especially as November 2012 draws nearer:

As you see, Reagan had the unemployment issue whipped BEFORE he was re-elected in 1984: No Doubt Obama will do much better, having spent $$Trillions in Stimulous.

You're right. He did have it licked, after years of double digit unemployment.

But at THIS point in his presidency, that was NOT the case.

And, unless my calendar is off, it doesn't seem to be September 2012 at the moment.

ahhh so we are back to strictly a political take, never mind that we have suffered so far an extra 23 months, even if things started straight up from here as long as its all good by sept 2012, no harm no foul......wonderful. hope you enjoyed your time in the pit.

 

[Vast LWC]

ahhh so we are back to strictly a political take, never mind that we have suffered so far an extra 23 months, even if things started straight up from here as long as its all good by sept 2012, no harm no foul......wonderful. hope you enjoyed your time in the pit.

Look, it is true that Reagan's recovery was phenomenal once it took off. I am not arguing that.

My point is that there were years before Reagan's recovery even got started. In fact, the economy sunk into a second recession a year and a half into his presidency.

My entire point here is that as soon as a bad month of unemployment figures comes out, the right seems to froth at the mouth, screaming about how the economy is obviously failing. Meanwhile, the hero of the right, Ronald Reagan, was having a tougher time himself at this point in his presidency.

I don't think that's political, I think that's just common sense. I think the right should occasionally cut the man a LITTLE BIT of slack, as, strictly by the numbers, he's doing better at this point economically than Reagan was.

And again, I LIKE Reagan, I'm not bashing the man, I'm pointing out the facts.

But more importantly, as Samson pointed out: External forces are more important than presidential policies in most cases, so this whole conversation is pretty much futile.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh and also, I find it hard to not go back to the politcal take when the thread is named "Obama stimulus is failed". Just saying...

 

[The Rabbi]

ahhh so we are back to strictly a political take, never mind that we have suffered so far an extra 23 months, even if things started straight up from here as long as its all good by sept 2012, no harm no foul......wonderful. hope you enjoyed your time in the pit.

Look, it is true that Reagan's recovery was phenomenal once it took off. I am not arguing that.

My point is that there were years before Reagan's recovery even got started. In fact, the economy sunk into a second recession a year and a half into his presidency.

My entire point here is that as soon as a bad month of unemployment figures comes out, the right seems to froth at the mouth, screaming about how the economy is obviously failing. Meanwhile, the hero of the right, Ronald Reagan, was having a tougher time himself at this point in his presidency.

I don't think that's political, I think that's just common sense. I think the right should occasionally cut the man a LITTLE BIT of slack, as, strictly by the numbers, he's doing better at this point economically than Reagan was.

And again, I LIKE Reagan, I'm not bashing the man, I'm pointing out the facts.

But more importantly, as Samson pointed out: External forces are more important than presidential policies in most cases, so this whole conversation is pretty much futile.

YTou keep wanting to compare very different periods. Obama did not have to contend with high inflation. Obama did not have the Fed Reserve chairman raise rates to historic highs to combat inflation, which was a long term structural issue in the economy. Obama did not have 3 years of stagflation.
Obama basically inherited a sound economy (McCain was right!) that was in the down part ofthe business cycle. But he took that crisis and rather than waste it used it to remake the economy into a euro-style socialism state. With appropriate results.

Reagan's recovery, hell any recovery, was much stronger than this one and did not require pumping trillions of dollars into the economy.

 

[boedicca]

We are now 5 months into the Republican stimulus, the 800 billion budget busting bill passed in December. Yes, the one President Obama foolishly got railroaded into agreeing to.

The Republican Congress is now a co-owner, with the administration, of this economy.

No we're not. There was no Republican Stimulus. What the GOP wants to do has not been accomplished....yet.

 

[The Rabbi]

We are now 5 months into the Republican stimulus, the 800 billion budget busting bill passed in December. Yes, the one President Obama foolishly got railroaded into agreeing to.

The Republican Congress is now a co-owner, with the administration, of this economy.

No we're not. There was no Republican Stimulus. What the GOP wants to do has not been accomplished....yet.

Bush pushed some kind of stimulus (remember rebate checks?) but that was designed, like a lot of Bush era legislation, by Democrats.
It also failed. Because gov't cannot stimulate anything other than more government.

 

[boedicca]

That's wonderful: I hope you continue to compare Obama to Reagan, especially as November 2012 draws nearer:

As you see, Reagan had the unemployment issue whipped BEFORE he was re-elected in 1984: No Doubt Obama will do much better, having spent $$Trillions in Stimulous.

You're right. He did have it licked, after years of double digit unemployment.

But at THIS point in his presidency, that was NOT the case.

And, unless my calendar is off, it doesn't seem to be September 2012 at the moment.

At this point in Reagan's first term, we were still in the 1981-1982 recession. At this point in Obama's, we are 23 months into what is supposed to be a recovery.

Obama's recovery is no better than being in a recession...in fact it's worse, considering the massive amounts of taxpayer money that have been wasted on his destructive, futile policies.

 

[The T]

That's wonderful: I hope you continue to compare Obama to Reagan, especially as November 2012 draws nearer:

As you see, Reagan had the unemployment issue whipped BEFORE he was re-elected in 1984: No Doubt Obama will do much better, having spent $$Trillions in Stimulous.

You're right. He did have it licked, after years of double digit unemployment.

But at THIS point in his presidency, that was NOT the case.

And, unless my calendar is off, it doesn't seem to be September 2012 at the moment.

At this point in Reagan's first term, we were still in the 1981-1982 recession. At this point in Obama's, we are 23 months into what is supposed to be a recovery.

Obama's recovery is no better than being in a recession...in fact it's worse, considering the massive amounts of taxpayer money that have been wasted on his destructive, futile policies.

Can you say Double Dip?

 

[Samson]

We are now 5 months into the Republican stimulus, the 800 billion budget busting bill passed in December. Yes, the one President Obama foolishly got railroaded into agreeing to.

The Republican Congress is now a co-owner, with the administration, of this economy.

Why are Dems always "foolishly railroaded into agreeing"

1. Iraq
2. Stimulous
3. ?

Happily they've never Foolishly Agreed to ever take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Samson]

We are now 5 months into the Republican stimulus, the 800 billion budget busting bill passed in December. Yes, the one President Obama foolishly got railroaded into agreeing to.

The Republican Congress is now a co-owner, with the administration, of this economy.

No we're not. There was no Republican Stimulus. What the GOP wants to do has not been accomplished....yet.

Bush pushed some kind of stimulus (remember rebate checks?) but that was designed, like a lot of Bush era legislation, by Democrats.
It also failed. Because gov't cannot stimulate anything other than more government.

Oh YEAH, I remember my rebate check...$250 to restock my bar!!!

I never felt more Proud to be American.

 

[boedicca]

Look, it is true that Reagan's recovery was phenomenal once it took off. I am not arguing that.

My point is that there were years before Reagan's recovery even got started. In fact, the economy sunk into a second recession a year and a half into his presidency.

No it didn't. The recession was started in July of his first year (1981) to combat double digit inflation. It ended in November of 1982. 23 months after the end of that recession, unemployment was down to 7.4%, and inflation had been reduced from 10.76% in July of 1981 to 4.59% in November of 1982. That dramatic drop in inflation truly benefited the economy.

In contrast, the 2007 recession supposedly ended in July of Obama's first year in office...and what has he done: He Made Things Worse. Despite the official inflation measures (which exclude food and energy)...consumers are feeling Real Inflation. Combine that with no improvement in employment, and Obama's records is appalling.

Obama's Recovery is The Worst One Ever. From the perspective of the average American, the Obama Misery Index is well over 20%.

 

[Vast LWC]

No it didn't. The recession was started in July of his first year (1981) to combat 13.5% inflation. It ended in November of 1982.

In contrast, the 2007 recessions supposedly ended in July of Obama's first year in office...and what has he done: He Made Things Worse.

What is the definition of a "double-dip" recession?

Are you saying the economy was in fine shape coming out of the Carter administration?

 

[Vast LWC]

YTou keep wanting to compare very different periods. Obama did not have to contend with high inflation. Obama did not have the Fed Reserve chairman raise rates to historic highs to combat inflation, which was a long term structural issue in the economy. Obama did not have 3 years of stagflation.
Obama basically inherited a sound economy (McCain was right!) that was in the down part ofthe business cycle. But he took that crisis and rather than waste it used it to remake the economy into a euro-style socialism state. With appropriate results.

Reagan's recovery, hell any recovery, was much stronger than this one and did not require pumping trillions of dollars into the economy.

I'm not even going to say anything to this, I'm just going to repeat what you just said.

"Obama basically inherited a sound economy that was in the down part ofthe business cycle."

Wow... just wow.

On that note, with my point made, I will take my leave to enjoy a beautiful Sunday afternoon.

 

[boedicca]

No it didn't. The recession was started in July of his first year (1981) to combat 13.5% inflation. It ended in November of 1982.

In contrast, the 2007 recessions supposedly ended in July of Obama's first year in office...and what has he done: He Made Things Worse.

What is the definition of a "double-dip" recession?

Are you saying the economy was in fine shape coming out of the Carter administration?

There was a recession in 1980 as well. The economy was in Shambles after the Carter Malaise-Stagflation. The 1981-1982 recession was necessary to break double digit inflation. There is no compelling economic reason to "break" anything in a second recession now...unless it's the remaining Constitutional Protections preventing the American People from being turned into serfs of a new Totalitarian State.

And here in a nutshell is the difference between Reagan's and Obama's policies: Reagan's Made Things Better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.

That's Ronald Reagan complaining about the national debt...

...in February of 1981. The debt then nearly tripled over the course of his presidency.

During the Reagan Presidentcy, Dems ran the HoR.

But you still get a point for consistant mindless parisanship.

So that is relevant? Who runs the house now?