Obama's honeymoon is over - now it's his recession

[Big Black Dog]

And now we are seeing that they lied about Obama being a socialist

Let's see. Obama's government has taken over control of the automakers. He's got a firm grip on the banking industry. AIG is in his back pocket. He's doing his best to get government controlled health care and insurance in the US. That appears to me to be pretty socialist in nature - maybe even worse. Just what is the lie being told about him not being a socialist? Could just be me, I get like this sometimes, but I think you're full of shit...

 

[sealybobo]

And now we are seeing that they lied about Obama being a socialist

Let's see. Obama's government has taken over control of the automakers. He's got a firm grip on the banking industry. AIG is in his back pocket. He's doing his best to get government controlled health care and insurance in the US. That appears to me to be pretty socialist in nature - maybe even worse. Just what is the lie being told about him not being a socialist? Could just be me, I get like this sometimes, but I think you're full of shit...

GM went bankrupt. You wanted GM to go bankrupt? Reagan saved/bailed out the Big 3 when he was president. Was Reagan a socialist?

AIG and the bankers own this country. That's not proof of socialism. That's proof the bankers own/control/run this country.

Oil, bank and insurance monopolies are harmful to democracy. You do know that, right? Government created the middle class, not free markets. Without government intervention, bye bye middle class. So keep calling it socialism when the government protects the middle class and poor from the robber baron's.

It isn't socialism that our military is government run. Some things should be government run, like healthcare. War should not be for profit either, yet we have Haloburton, Hunt oil and Blackwater prolonging the war so they can keep raping the tax payers.

Lastly. Isn't it funny that Obama is a socialist, but the GOP only privatize the profits. They socialize all the losses.

So I'm all for the government getting some profits back rather than paying all the losses and getting zero profits.

Now ignore everything I said and continue to be a ******* ignorant/dishonest spinster/bullshitter/flat out liar.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

BO did not cause it, Bush did.

BO prolonged it and made it worse.

What a great POTUS he is not.

Bush did not cause this, he merely contributed to getting us here. The road that got us here has been a long one with more than one administration to blame. Obama, as far as I can tell, is doing nothing to help the situation. Rather, it seems as if his policies will only be prolonging our problems. But time will tell. So far, not so good.

It's funny, I seem to remember some folks laying the blame for 9/11 at Bush's feet, completely ignoring the policies of administrations past which, any thinking person could conclude, contributed to those events. They claim he ignored warnings in intelligence briefings that were at best vague. As if the prior administration didn't ignore the fact that Osama had essentially declared war on the U.S. in 1996. Perhaps Bush should have declared martial law based on the information at hand?

The point I'm trying to get to, or the question really, is this:

At what point does Obama get pinned with the responsibility for the stateof the union? When will people stop blaming Bush and recognize Obama's leadership? September?

The woman overseeing the tarp funds explained it best.

Before the Great Depression we had big busts and booms every 10 years. Good for the rich, bad for the masses. So we put in regulations and the New Deal and Unions came to be and we had 60 years of slow steady healthy growth.

Then Reagan became president and he started busting unions and sending jobs overseas and deregulating and giving rich people all the tax breaks, etc, and then we started getting things like the John McCain Keating 5 S&L loans scandal of the 80's, and then we got Enron and Bernie Madoff and the housing crash and the bundling of toxic assets and the bank bailouts.

I know its been going on forever and its hard to grasp, but basically it all started happening with Reagan.

And righties lied when they said Clinton was the most liberal guy ever.

And now we are seeing that they lied about Obama being a socialist. They're attacking him like they did Clinton from both angles. Is he a sellout too or is he a socialist? Hard to say for sure, so they just attack from both angles. Very effective seeing as how I have to argue against both approaches.

Meanwhile the lobbyists still run this country, but you won't see righties complaining about lobbyists. Maybe once in awhile, but they are too busy tea bagging liberal social programs that cost billions to notice the $9 trillions the bankers stole in the last 8 months.

I'd say it all started when we went off the gold standard in 1971. Inflation is destroying the middle class.

 

[sealybobo]

Bush did not cause this, he merely contributed to getting us here. The road that got us here has been a long one with more than one administration to blame. Obama, as far as I can tell, is doing nothing to help the situation. Rather, it seems as if his policies will only be prolonging our problems. But time will tell. So far, not so good.

It's funny, I seem to remember some folks laying the blame for 9/11 at Bush's feet, completely ignoring the policies of administrations past which, any thinking person could conclude, contributed to those events. They claim he ignored warnings in intelligence briefings that were at best vague. As if the prior administration didn't ignore the fact that Osama had essentially declared war on the U.S. in 1996. Perhaps Bush should have declared martial law based on the information at hand?

The point I'm trying to get to, or the question really, is this:

At what point does Obama get pinned with the responsibility for the stateof the union? When will people stop blaming Bush and recognize Obama's leadership? September?

The woman overseeing the tarp funds explained it best.

Before the Great Depression we had big busts and booms every 10 years. Good for the rich, bad for the masses. So we put in regulations and the New Deal and Unions came to be and we had 60 years of slow steady healthy growth.

Then Reagan became president and he started busting unions and sending jobs overseas and deregulating and giving rich people all the tax breaks, etc, and then we started getting things like the John McCain Keating 5 S&L loans scandal of the 80's, and then we got Enron and Bernie Madoff and the housing crash and the bundling of toxic assets and the bank bailouts.

I know its been going on forever and its hard to grasp, but basically it all started happening with Reagan.

And righties lied when they said Clinton was the most liberal guy ever.

And now we are seeing that they lied about Obama being a socialist. They're attacking him like they did Clinton from both angles. Is he a sellout too or is he a socialist? Hard to say for sure, so they just attack from both angles. Very effective seeing as how I have to argue against both approaches.

Meanwhile the lobbyists still run this country, but you won't see righties complaining about lobbyists. Maybe once in awhile, but they are too busy tea bagging liberal social programs that cost billions to notice the $9 trillions the bankers stole in the last 8 months.

I'd say it all started when we went off the gold standard in 1971. Inflation is destroying the middle class.

I'm not saying the Robber Baron's weren't chipping away at Democracy from the Great Depression to Reagan, but they really picked up steam after Reagan got into office.

Just look at who the 90 GOP worshipped and who the 2000-current GOP tried to immulate. Reagan. He is/was the modern movement.

He was able to push their radical ideas and be popular.

But yea, things happened in the 70's, 60's and 50's too I'm sure.

 

[elvis]

Most economists agree FDR's policies extended the depression about ten years.

And hold on there.... You're painting with a pretty broad brush with the "you people" stuff. The SPEED of the jobs arriving was promised, not arbitrarily expected out of the blue. They were one of the selling points for the rush to get this bill passed no one read.

And we see that 10% unemployment rate about to hit, with no end in sight. Inflation will be right around the corner, then a full-blown depression.

Obama's made a mountain out of a molehill, just like his idol FDR did.

I'm really sorry that YOU PEOPLE (sorry, but it's fitting) choose to ONLY see the negative side of everything when there are indeed signs that the economy is slowly recovering. YOU PEOPLE demand instant results, which is ignorant.

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jul. 1, 2009

Stock gains speed up
Wall Street rallies on rising commodity shares and upbeat housing and manufacturing reports.

Last Updated: July 1, 2009: 10:50 AM ET

They want America to fail. They said we wanted Bush to fail in Iraq so we could win the election. Not true. Just a case of I Told You So's.

But we would not let them forget Bush lied us in. After that, win god damn it. And sorry if we pointed out that it seemed like Bush was happy that Iraq was a quagmire because then his oil and defense buddies could continue to rape the tax payers. Just seemed that way to us.

But I didn't want the GOP to fail in 2002. I forgot all about the 2000 election and I rallied behind Bush, just like everyone else. I burned my Dixie Chick CD's too.

And I too was mad at Canada for not backing us up on the Iraq invasion. Boy am I embarrassed now.

And if Bushanomics worked, I'd be a god damn Republican today. I would have said, "well, the newt gingrich congress is gone and this new one is good", but the new one was even worse.

Tom Delay was a scumbag. Remember Jack Abramoff. Sure he gave Dems pennies on the dollar compared to how much the GOP got from that scumbag.

But the GOP did so much wrong in those first 4 years that they didn't deserve to lead this country. Just look at the economy today if you doubt that. The only reason they won was they scared Americans into thinking if the Dems won, we'd have another 9-11. They owned the media/spotlight back then. Dems were irrelivent. The GOP got to lead, and now they don't want to take the blame for their results? Typical.

Its in the Dems hands now. I hope they don't **** up.

But last year was the year to fall in love. Now is the time to fall in line. We did it for you after 9-11, so now its the GOP's turn to fall in line. We didn't like Bush's radical agenda either. And he didn't have 60 seats yet still he got it done. Right wingers can't deny he got whatever he wanted passed. Not one veto in 6 years. Amazing. That's a record.

No one wants america to fail. You don't get to play that card every time we don't worship your boy-king. sorry.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm really sorry that YOU PEOPLE (sorry, but it's fitting) choose to ONLY see the negative side of everything when there are indeed signs that the economy is slowly recovering. YOU PEOPLE demand instant results, which is ignorant.

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jul. 1, 2009

Stock gains speed up
Wall Street rallies on rising commodity shares and upbeat housing and manufacturing reports.

Last Updated: July 1, 2009: 10:50 AM ET

They want America to fail. They said we wanted Bush to fail in Iraq so we could win the election. Not true. Just a case of I Told You So's.

But we would not let them forget Bush lied us in. After that, win god damn it. And sorry if we pointed out that it seemed like Bush was happy that Iraq was a quagmire because then his oil and defense buddies could continue to rape the tax payers. Just seemed that way to us.

But I didn't want the GOP to fail in 2002. I forgot all about the 2000 election and I rallied behind Bush, just like everyone else. I burned my Dixie Chick CD's too.

And I too was mad at Canada for not backing us up on the Iraq invasion. Boy am I embarrassed now.

And if Bushanomics worked, I'd be a god damn Republican today. I would have said, "well, the newt gingrich congress is gone and this new one is good", but the new one was even worse.

Tom Delay was a scumbag. Remember Jack Abramoff. Sure he gave Dems pennies on the dollar compared to how much the GOP got from that scumbag.

But the GOP did so much wrong in those first 4 years that they didn't deserve to lead this country. Just look at the economy today if you doubt that. The only reason they won was they scared Americans into thinking if the Dems won, we'd have another 9-11. They owned the media/spotlight back then. Dems were irrelivent. The GOP got to lead, and now they don't want to take the blame for their results? Typical.

Its in the Dems hands now. I hope they don't **** up.

But last year was the year to fall in love. Now is the time to fall in line. We did it for you after 9-11, so now its the GOP's turn to fall in line. We didn't like Bush's radical agenda either. And he didn't have 60 seats yet still he got it done. Right wingers can't deny he got whatever he wanted passed. Not one veto in 6 years. Amazing. That's a record.

No one wants america to fail. You don't get to play that card every time we don't worship your boy-king. sorry.

Why not? You guys used it for 8 years and I explained how you were wrong.

Now Rush admits it and the CIA director says it is true that Cheney wants us to get hit again.

That's two of your leaders buddy. Sorry if the truth hurts.

And yes, you guys would LOVE to see a prolonged recession. For one, it will allow you to send more jobs overseas, suck on the tax payers tit, kill more important government/social programs, win elections, lower wages.

As long as profits are up, you don't give a **** about anything else.

 

[PuckeredPete]

I will consider it his alone in November, 2009...or late October at the earliest.

 

[elvis]

They want America to fail. They said we wanted Bush to fail in Iraq so we could win the election. Not true. Just a case of I Told You So's.

But we would not let them forget Bush lied us in. After that, win god damn it. And sorry if we pointed out that it seemed like Bush was happy that Iraq was a quagmire because then his oil and defense buddies could continue to rape the tax payers. Just seemed that way to us.

But I didn't want the GOP to fail in 2002. I forgot all about the 2000 election and I rallied behind Bush, just like everyone else. I burned my Dixie Chick CD's too.

And I too was mad at Canada for not backing us up on the Iraq invasion. Boy am I embarrassed now.

And if Bushanomics worked, I'd be a god damn Republican today. I would have said, "well, the newt gingrich congress is gone and this new one is good", but the new one was even worse.

Tom Delay was a scumbag. Remember Jack Abramoff. Sure he gave Dems pennies on the dollar compared to how much the GOP got from that scumbag.

But the GOP did so much wrong in those first 4 years that they didn't deserve to lead this country. Just look at the economy today if you doubt that. The only reason they won was they scared Americans into thinking if the Dems won, we'd have another 9-11. They owned the media/spotlight back then. Dems were irrelivent. The GOP got to lead, and now they don't want to take the blame for their results? Typical.

Its in the Dems hands now. I hope they don't **** up.

But last year was the year to fall in love. Now is the time to fall in line. We did it for you after 9-11, so now its the GOP's turn to fall in line. We didn't like Bush's radical agenda either. And he didn't have 60 seats yet still he got it done. Right wingers can't deny he got whatever he wanted passed. Not one veto in 6 years. Amazing. That's a record.

No one wants america to fail. You don't get to play that card every time we don't worship your boy-king. sorry.

Why not? You guys used it for 8 years and I explained how you were wrong.

Now Rush admits it and the CIA director says it is true that Cheney wants us to get hit again.

That's two of your leaders buddy. Sorry if the truth hurts.

And yes, you guys would LOVE to see a prolonged recession. For one, it will allow you to send more jobs overseas, suck on the tax payers tit, kill more important government/social programs, win elections, lower wages.

As long as profits are up, you don't give a **** about anything else.

I didn't know Rush was our leader. I guess Michael Moore is yours. the only people who make the claim that those who disagree with them are wanting america to fail or supporting her enemies are you and Maggie. I certainly never said anyone who disagrees with iraq wants america to fail. I don't want a recession and I don't want to send jobs overseas, even though your boyking does. I loved it when he called laid off steel-workers in Ohio "clingers to anti-trade"

 

[oreo]

Where I live--"rural" area--we're seeing a little pick-up because we're in a tourist area. I think most of this is due to lower gasoline prices than last summer.

Consumer confidence index falling again--is NOT GOOD--along with a report that metropolitan areas unemployment is still rising.

This is a perfect example of Reaganomics versus Obamanomics.

"You can't borrow & spend your way to prosperity." Right now the Federal Government is borrowing .50 cents on every dollar it's spending.

 

[PuckeredPete]

No one wants america to fail. You don't get to play that card every time we don't worship your boy-king. sorry.

Why not? You guys used it for 8 years and I explained how you were wrong.

Now Rush admits it and the CIA director says it is true that Cheney wants us to get hit again.

That's two of your leaders buddy. Sorry if the truth hurts.

And yes, you guys would LOVE to see a prolonged recession. For one, it will allow you to send more jobs overseas, suck on the tax payers tit, kill more important government/social programs, win elections, lower wages.

As long as profits are up, you don't give a **** about anything else.

I didn't know Rush was our leader. I guess Michael Moore is yours. the only people who make the claim that those who disagree with them are wanting america to fail or supporting her enemies are you and Maggie. I certainly never said anyone who disagrees with iraq wants america to fail. I don't want a recession and I don't want to send jobs overseas, even though your boyking does. I loved it when he called laid off steel-workers in Ohio "clingers to anti-trade"

Rush Limbaugh = Michael Moore? I don't think so, in anybody's eyes.

 

[WillowTree]

Democwats got a 60 seat majority.. know what that means asswipes?? it happened on your ******* watch.. obamalama ding dong said.. "quick pass the stimulus.. if you don't unemployment will reach 8%.. so congress did,, democwat congress did.. the party of KNOW voted NO.. guess what???? unemployment is now at 9.4% and headed for double digits.. guess what else???? it happened on your ******* watch.. guess what,, democwats been in control since 2006,,,,, guess what?? it's the democwats fault.. the US OF KKKA is going down and it's the democwats fault..

 

[elvis]

Why not? You guys used it for 8 years and I explained how you were wrong.

Now Rush admits it and the CIA director says it is true that Cheney wants us to get hit again.

That's two of your leaders buddy. Sorry if the truth hurts.

And yes, you guys would LOVE to see a prolonged recession. For one, it will allow you to send more jobs overseas, suck on the tax payers tit, kill more important government/social programs, win elections, lower wages.

As long as profits are up, you don't give a **** about anything else.

I didn't know Rush was our leader. I guess Michael Moore is yours. the only people who make the claim that those who disagree with them are wanting america to fail or supporting her enemies are you and Maggie. I certainly never said anyone who disagrees with iraq wants america to fail. I don't want a recession and I don't want to send jobs overseas, even though your boyking does. I loved it when he called laid off steel-workers in Ohio "clingers to anti-trade"

Rush Limbaugh = Michael Moore? I don't think so, in anybody's eyes.

I am not saying they are equivalent.

 

[midcan5]

Most economists agree FDR's policies extended the depression about ten years.

Have you ever noticed that this BS never has a name or substantive article attached to it? It is like stupidity is feed from the baby bottle and the child never learns. Sad tools or is that fools.

great depression - timeline

Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-New-Deal-Introductions/dp/0195326342/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1230302046&sr=1-8]Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Eric Rauchway: Books[/ame]


Interesting for today

Project Syndicate

 

[Oddball]

Most economists agree FDR's policies extended the depression about ten years.

Have you ever noticed that this BS never has a name or substantive article attached to it?

Here's one, though I don't expect leftist worshipers of FDR to accept the truth.

Great Myths of the Great Depression [Mackinac Center]

 

[MaggieMae]

BO did not cause it, Bush did.

BO prolonged it and made it worse.

What a great POTUS he is not.

Bush did not cause this, he merely contributed to getting us here. The road that got us here has been a long one with more than one administration to blame. Obama, as far as I can tell, is doing nothing to help the situation. Rather, it seems as if his policies will only be prolonging our problems. But time will tell. So far, not so good.

It's funny, I seem to remember some folks laying the blame for 9/11 at Bush's feet, completely ignoring the policies of administrations past which, any thinking person could conclude, contributed to those events. They claim he ignored warnings in intelligence briefings that were at best vague. As if the prior administration didn't ignore the fact that Osama had essentially declared war on the U.S. in 1996. Perhaps Bush should have declared martial law based on the information at hand?

The point I'm trying to get to, or the question really, is this:

At what point does Obama get pinned with the responsibility for the stateof the union? When will people stop blaming Bush and recognize Obama's leadership? September?

Well that's at least a more rational response than most. Thank you. Yes, I'm waiting until mid September, which will have seen two complete quarters to see if there is significant and hopeful progress (more emphasis on significant than on hopeful by that time).

But I have to be honest: I still believe that long term investment in health care reform and an expanded energy program, which will cost money up front, will be beneficial in the long term. I think in terms of INVESTMENT, whereas the naysayers think in terms of SPENDING. Look at it this way: If you invest $100 in stock, do you do it anticipating you will lose your money, have it sit there in some account never moving, or expect it to increase in value?

 

[Oddball]

Her we go again with that utterly naïve notion that gubbment can "invest".

Politicians don't "invest" for a monetary return, they do so for a political return.

There's a difference.

 

[Nik]

Democwats got a 60 seat majority.. know what that means asswipes?? it happened on your ******* watch.. obamalama ding dong said.. "quick pass the stimulus.. if you don't unemployment will reach 8%.. so congress did,, democwat congress did.. the party of KNOW voted NO.. guess what???? unemployment is now at 9.4% and headed for double digits.. guess what else???? it happened on your ******* watch.. guess what,, democwats been in control since 2006,,,,, guess what?? it's the democwats fault.. the US OF KKKA is going down and it's the democwats fault..

Democrats were in control with a Republican president?

How do you figure?

 

[MaggieMae]

And now we are seeing that they lied about Obama being a socialist

Let's see. Obama's government has taken over control of the automakers. He's got a firm grip on the banking industry. AIG is in his back pocket. He's doing his best to get government controlled health care and insurance in the US. That appears to me to be pretty socialist in nature - maybe even worse. Just what is the lie being told about him not being a socialist? Could just be me, I get like this sometimes, but I think you're full of shit...

You call it socialistic, I call it grabbing the steering aparatus of major wealth distributors who were out of control and running the country aground.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bush did not cause this, he merely contributed to getting us here. The road that got us here has been a long one with more than one administration to blame. Obama, as far as I can tell, is doing nothing to help the situation. Rather, it seems as if his policies will only be prolonging our problems. But time will tell. So far, not so good.

It's funny, I seem to remember some folks laying the blame for 9/11 at Bush's feet, completely ignoring the policies of administrations past which, any thinking person could conclude, contributed to those events. They claim he ignored warnings in intelligence briefings that were at best vague. As if the prior administration didn't ignore the fact that Osama had essentially declared war on the U.S. in 1996. Perhaps Bush should have declared martial law based on the information at hand?

The point I'm trying to get to, or the question really, is this:

At what point does Obama get pinned with the responsibility for the stateof the union? When will people stop blaming Bush and recognize Obama's leadership? September?

The woman overseeing the tarp funds explained it best.

Before the Great Depression we had big busts and booms every 10 years. Good for the rich, bad for the masses. So we put in regulations and the New Deal and Unions came to be and we had 60 years of slow steady healthy growth.

Then Reagan became president and he started busting unions and sending jobs overseas and deregulating and giving rich people all the tax breaks, etc, and then we started getting things like the John McCain Keating 5 S&L loans scandal of the 80's, and then we got Enron and Bernie Madoff and the housing crash and the bundling of toxic assets and the bank bailouts.

I know its been going on forever and its hard to grasp, but basically it all started happening with Reagan.

And righties lied when they said Clinton was the most liberal guy ever.

And now we are seeing that they lied about Obama being a socialist. They're attacking him like they did Clinton from both angles. Is he a sellout too or is he a socialist? Hard to say for sure, so they just attack from both angles. Very effective seeing as how I have to argue against both approaches.

Meanwhile the lobbyists still run this country, but you won't see righties complaining about lobbyists. Maybe once in awhile, but they are too busy tea bagging liberal social programs that cost billions to notice the $9 trillions the bankers stole in the last 8 months.

I'd say it all started when we went off the gold standard in 1971. Inflation is destroying the middle class.

I often wonder if Richard Nixon foresaw potential debt problems when he took us off the gold standard. He was the one who normalized relations with China, which ultimately led to trade agreements and the willingness of China to back a good share of our debt. Can you imagine if China ever decided to call in those IOU's by payment in gold? Gold is our proverbial ace in the hole. Without the unknown quantities stored at Fort Knox and beneath the Federal Reserve, we would literally be broke.

 

[MaggieMae]

No one wants america to fail. You don't get to play that card every time we don't worship your boy-king. sorry.

Why not? You guys used it for 8 years and I explained how you were wrong.

Now Rush admits it and the CIA director says it is true that Cheney wants us to get hit again.

That's two of your leaders buddy. Sorry if the truth hurts.

And yes, you guys would LOVE to see a prolonged recession. For one, it will allow you to send more jobs overseas, suck on the tax payers tit, kill more important government/social programs, win elections, lower wages.

As long as profits are up, you don't give a **** about anything else.

I didn't know Rush was our leader. I guess Michael Moore is yours. the only people who make the claim that those who disagree with them are wanting america to fail or supporting her enemies are you and Maggie. I certainly never said anyone who disagrees with iraq wants america to fail. I don't want a recession and I don't want to send jobs overseas, even though your boyking does. I loved it when he called laid off steel-workers in Ohio "clingers to anti-trade"

That's bullshit. I never said anyone who disagreed with me wanted "America" to fail. There are many, however, who DO want OBAMA to fail. And for now anyway, he represents America. If you think that's not true, then you just climbed out of a cave.