The left wakes up: Obama is not ‘sort of God’

[NoNukes]

Obama is a third bush term. I have been saying this since early 2008.

Still not sure why the Tea Party do not consider Obama as some sort of God though.

Maybe because Tea Party types find Chimpy's profligate spending and bankster bailouts abhorrent as well?

It took lots and lots of would-be republican voters staying home to get the Dick-in-Chief elected.

Yeah right, none of you on the right are racists.

 

[NoNukes]

Obama is a third bush term. I have been saying this since early 2008.

Still not sure why the Tea Party do not consider Obama as some sort of God though.

What's funny about the Right is one minute they're calling Obama a leftwing extremist the next minute they're pointing out how much like Bush he is.

They're idiots.

he ain't nothing like President Bush. President Bush has class.

When did he acquire it? Must have found some for sale and daddy bought it for him.

 

[whitehall]

When left wingers start blaming "both" parties for the financial crisis instead of just Bush or Reagan its the first sign of the abandonment of Obama policies.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

cons are so nuanced and thoughtful.

Yeah. I know. Right?

check out the reagan and carter parts of the graph. and yet reagan is the fiscal conservative, and carter's the big spender, and to suggest otherwise gets you a cuckoo emoticon with no context.

reagan basically invented the style of deficit spending we're engaging in now. he was the first president to do it.

Like I said, Reagan invented low tax rates after years of market-stifling high ones as he exposed the insanity of Keynesianism. The problem is a bloated government and unsustainable entitlements, always has been, not low tax rates and the increased revenue they engender in growing economies. But that nuanced and thoughtful understanding of things is beyond the grasp of most leftists, including you, apparently.

Uh-huh. And from 1982 to 2000, essentially the Reagan era of low tax rates and systematic decreases in non-essential spending against exploding entitlement growth, how did we manage to balance the budget anyway? And who controlled Congress for the most part during those years?

Leftist don't understand what's really going on at all.








__________________

 

[Steelplate]

by Jennifer Ruben
Right Turn
The Washington Post
08/09/2011

Poor Evan Thomas will never live down his ludicrous comment that President Obama was “sort of God.” What seemed like slobbering now seems outright dumb, given the president’s performance. And don’t take my word for it.

Left-wing pundits have discovered he’s sort of like Jimmy Carter. Others now comprehend he’s remote and cold. Still others recognize he is weak and ineffectual (“strangely powerless, and irresolute, as larger forces bring down the country and his presidency”).



LINK

The left never thought Obama was sort of God.

oh hell yes they did.

No... that was your boy Rush telling you we thought he was. I never thought of him anything more than a Democratic Politician. Never... and I don't think of any MAN as a GOD. There is only one God, and I resent the insinuation.

 

[McDowell's]

are you aware of how graphs work? deficit spending before ford was negligible, at least compared to reagan levels, so they started the graph with ford. if they'd drawn a flat line going all the way back to the washington administration, the graph would have been as unreadable as the one gunboy just linked to.

anyway, we were just talking about carter and reagan, and the graph includes both, so it suffices to make my point. you guys sure do like to win a lot of arguments by using the cuckoo emoticon rathar than actually making an argument, though. nicely done. must be great for things to be so easy.

You've never heard of the Great Depression or Franklin D. Roosevelt then. Just wanted to make sure, you dumbass. A simpleton could have looked at what I posted and concluded I was implying you should go back a little bit further in history than what was evident in the graph. That was quite clearly lost on you.

fair point, that slipped my mind. FDR kinda gets a pass on his deficit, though, we sorta needed to win world war ii.

FDR's deficits began well before the war and they were implemented to stimulate the economy - the same rationale that has been used to explain away every deficit ever since.

 

[HenryBHough]

The left never thought Obama was sort of God.

True!

But primarily because "thought" requires "thinking" and they're not allowed to do that. In this case they KNEW OKP was sort of God because Saul Alinsky predicted it.

 

[Steelplate]

Yeah. I know. Right?

check out the reagan and carter parts of the graph. and yet reagan is the fiscal conservative, and carter's the big spender, and to suggest otherwise gets you a cuckoo emoticon with no context.

reagan basically invented the style of deficit spending we're engaging in now. he was the first president to do it.

Like I said, Reagan invented low tax rates after years of market-stifling high ones as he exposed the insanity of Keynesianism. The problem is a bloated government and unsustainable entitlements, always has been, not low tax rates and the increased revenue they engender in growing economies. But that nuanced and thoughtful understanding of things is beyond the grasp of most leftists, including you, apparently.

Uh-huh. And from 1982 to 2000, essentially the Reagan era of low tax rates and systematic decreases in non-essential spending against exploding entitlement growth, how did we manage to balance the budget anyway? And who controlled Congress for the most part during those years?

Leftist don't understand what's really going on at all.








__________________

Neither do the righties. Reagan also instituted this thing called... Trickle down economics... meaning that we give breaks(tax and otherwise) to businesses and they respond by TRICKLING DOWN... you know, create decent paying jobs for people to keep on spending... It's a symbiotic relationship... Business makes money, people have jobs, spend money and the cycle continues.... Well... somewhere along the line ONE Side decided to renege on that relationship.... and it certainly wasn't the worker. Big Business and Banking is doing outstanding... and instead of trickling down, they kept it and are keeping it to this day.

Trickle down, or Supply side economics.... has failed miserably.

 

[highway234]

You've never heard of the Great Depression or Franklin D. Roosevelt then. Just wanted to make sure, you dumbass. A simpleton could have looked at what I posted and concluded I was implying you should go back a little bit further in history than what was evident in the graph. That was quite clearly lost on you.

fair point, that slipped my mind. FDR kinda gets a pass on his deficit, though, we sorta needed to win world war ii.

FDR's deficits began well before the war and they were implemented to stimulate the economy - the same rationale that has been used to explain away every deficit ever since.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

actually, i seem to have conceded too soon on FDR's deficits. he spent massively on the new deal and the war, but of course, he had a lot more flexibility to raise taxes. we no longer have that option, the republicans have ruled it out. so it turns out FDR's deficits were nowhere near as big as reagan's and those presidents who came after.

after the war FDR's deficits were partially paid back in the post-war boom. problem is, wars rarely end in economic booms. usually they bankrupt the nation financing them. but we were fortunate enough to have a massive industrial base post-war (it helps to win; it also helps to not be bombed) and a nice, juicy, ravaged europe to rebuild that gave us a great export market. people think the war fixed the depression but not really, it was the exports to postwar europe and japan. if you look at the graph, the debt was pretty stable after the war, ticked up in the korean war, ticked up again in the vietnam war, steadily climbs and then explodes under reagan, where we spent the USSR into bankruptcy but at the cost that we now have high, structural deficits as far as the eye can see. i think people keep expecting these wars (vietnam, korea, the cold war, iraq, afghanistan) to create a boom the way world war ii, but they don't because they haven't created an export market for us the way wwii did. so we just keep getting more and more wars, and more and more deficits.

 

[highway234]

Like I said, Reagan invented low tax rates after years of market-stifling high ones as he exposed the insanity of Keynesianism.

who was a keynesian in the post-war years? i guess eisenhower was, sorta, with the IHS and other forms of domestic spending, but he presided over a strong economy, by and large. so did JFK, though i don't think he lived long enough for us to get a strong sense of the form his presidency would take. starting with LBJ vietnam started to become a huge drag on the economy and after that, the oil shocks. that led to the recessions in the 70s. i keep hearing that big spending carter was to blame, but no one will ever explain to me exactly what it was he was spending all this money on. i just get this vague association of democrats with spending.

The problem is a bloated government and unsustainable entitlements, always has been, not low tax rates and the increased revenue they engender in growing economies. But that nuanced and thoughtful understanding of things is beyond the grasp of most leftists, including you, apparently.

saying you're being nuanced isn't the same as actually BEING nuanced. the reason low taxes and low interest rates is NOT a formula for trickle-down prosperity is that 1. it inflates bubbles as low interest rates encourage speculative spending and discourage savings, and 2. it de-incentivizes the wealthy to engage in hiring, manufacturing and other tangible projects in favor of sinking their cash into high-risk, high-yield investment. if the investment goes south they've got plenty of money they can shift around because they've got so little tax burden (never mind bailouts) but if it pays off it pays off BIG.

if you have a more reasonable tax rate on the rich, though, it encourages them to take more of a long view. how do you make a lot of money if you have a high tax rate? you create a large, stable company that creates a tangible asset and you hire lifetime permanent workers and that way you create a long-term stable revenue generator for yourself. it's not a coincidence that under the eisenhower tax rates we experienced a huge manufacturing boom, but under reagan all our jobs started getting outsourced and we started to change from a manufacturing to a finance and service economy. the wealthy were flush with cash and could afford to take a few risks gambling on naked CDOs and cheap chinese labor. it's also not a coincidence the economy started cyclically crashing, staring with the S&L crisis and the '87 crash. it's because low interest rates and high income disparities create bubbles.

Uh-huh. And from 1982 to 2000, essentially the Reagan era of low tax rates and systematic decreases in non-essential spending against exploding entitlement growth, how did we manage to balance the budget anyway? And who controlled Congress for the most part during those years?

right, this is that thing cons do where they give the credit/blame for the economy to the president when it suits them, and to the congress when it suits them. we're on to that trick.

Leftist don't understand what's really going on at all.

i think i've got a pretty good handle on it: trickle down economics is killing us, it's been slowly killing us since reagan, and under obama, it's continuing to kill us.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Neither do the righties. Reagan also instituted this thing called... Trickle down economics... meaning that we give breaks(tax and otherwise) to businesses and they respond by TRICKLING DOWN... you know, create decent paying jobs for people to keep on spending... It's a symbiotic relationship... Business makes money, people have jobs, spend money and the cycle continues.... Well... somewhere along the line ONE Side decided to renege on that relationship.... and it certainly wasn't the worker. Big Business and Banking is doing outstanding... and instead of trickling down, they kept it and are keeping it to this day.

Trickle down, or Supply side economics.... has failed miserably.

No, Sir! Low tax rates for all most certainly did not fail to do precisely what was predicted, roughly, from 1981 to 2001. The economy grew faster and bigger during that period than in any other period of growth in U.S. history, and revenue went through the roof!

What happened after that? What has happened during Obama's administration? What factors are different? Why won't cash-fat businesses invest or hire?

Leftists don't understand what's going on at all. We have got to get these idiots out of the Senate and the White House in 2012.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The media contributed to that aura and is now waking up. That a a long slumber, even for a liberal. But there are some on the other side of the playing field that would have been Rumsfield roommate. for a long time, too. We can't forget that.

Really? Who? Cite evidence. Who on the right EVER sucked Rumsfeld's ass the way virtually the entire left has sucked Obama's?

 

[highway234]

No, Sir! Low tax rates for all most certainly did not fail to do precisely what was predicted, roughly, from 1981 to 2001. The economy grew faster and bigger during that period than in any other period of growth in U.S. history, and revenue went through the roof!

the 1981-2001 period was a bubble period. that's why the economy grew. it was smoke and mirrors, and that's why in conjunction with that growth we've also had crash after crash. that creates capital flight, people don't want to participate in an economy that's constantly crashing so they either dick around in the stock market or go offshore.

What happened after that?

the bush tax cuts, mainly. oh! also, 9/11, katrina, two unfunded wars and medicare part d, all either terrifically expensive disasters or unfunded mandates.

What has happened during Obama's administration? What factors are different?

i dunno, not much. gay marriage and a few good speeches, but his economic policy isn't any different from bush's. heck, he kept on most of bush's financial guys!

Why won't cash-fat businesses invest or hire?

because bubble economies are inherently unstable, and that discourages long-term investment.

Leftists don't understand what's going on at all.

so you keep saying, but not proving.

 

[Steelplate]

Neither do the righties. Reagan also instituted this thing called... Trickle down economics... meaning that we give breaks(tax and otherwise) to businesses and they respond by TRICKLING DOWN... you know, create decent paying jobs for people to keep on spending... It's a symbiotic relationship... Business makes money, people have jobs, spend money and the cycle continues.... Well... somewhere along the line ONE Side decided to renege on that relationship.... and it certainly wasn't the worker. Big Business and Banking is doing outstanding... and instead of trickling down, they kept it and are keeping it to this day.

Trickle down, or Supply side economics.... has failed miserably.

No, Sir! Low tax rates for all most certainly did not fail to do precisely what was predicted, roughly, from 1981 to 2001. The economy grew faster and bigger during that period than in any other period of growth in U.S. history, and revenue went through the roof!

What happened after that? What has happened during Obama's administration? What factors are different? Why won't cash-fat businesses invest or hire?

Leftists don't understand what's going on at all. We have got to get these idiots out of the Senate and the White House in 2012.

Yeah, no shit.... Until they realized that "trickling down" was optional. We've had the Bush tax cuts in effect for 10+ years and the wealthy, the Corporate structure, the Banking industry has seem massive and record profits... Don't tell me any different, look around you... who's raking it in? Who's suffering? It's right in front of your eyes and you refuse to see it.

EDIT: this has been going on for the last decade... it's not just these past three years... it started gradually and it's snowballing now. Congratulations....

 

[Full-Auto]

Neither do the righties. Reagan also instituted this thing called... Trickle down economics... meaning that we give breaks(tax and otherwise) to businesses and they respond by TRICKLING DOWN... you know, create decent paying jobs for people to keep on spending... It's a symbiotic relationship... Business makes money, people have jobs, spend money and the cycle continues.... Well... somewhere along the line ONE Side decided to renege on that relationship.... and it certainly wasn't the worker. Big Business and Banking is doing outstanding... and instead of trickling down, they kept it and are keeping it to this day.

Trickle down, or Supply side economics.... has failed miserably.

No, Sir! Low tax rates for all most certainly did not fail to do precisely what was predicted, roughly, from 1981 to 2001. The economy grew faster and bigger during that period than in any other period of growth in U.S. history, and revenue went through the roof!

What happened after that? What has happened during Obama's administration? What factors are different? Why won't cash-fat businesses invest or hire?

Leftists don't understand what's going on at all. We have got to get these idiots out of the Senate and the White House in 2012.

Yeah, no shit.... Until they realized that "trickling down" was optional. We've had the Bush tax cuts in effect for 10+ years and the wealthy, the Corporate structure, the Banking industry has seem massive and record profits... Don't tell me any different, look around you... who's raking it in? Who's suffering? It's right in front of your eyes and you refuse to see it.

Thats right the people are hurting. So what do democrats do, why promote many of those banking and wall street crooks to this administration. But you refuse to see it.

 

[Steelplate]

No, Sir! Low tax rates for all most certainly did not fail to do precisely what was predicted, roughly, from 1981 to 2001. The economy grew faster and bigger during that period than in any other period of growth in U.S. history, and revenue went through the roof!

What happened after that? What has happened during Obama's administration? What factors are different? Why won't cash-fat businesses invest or hire?

Leftists don't understand what's going on at all. We have got to get these idiots out of the Senate and the White House in 2012.

Yeah, no shit.... Until they realized that "trickling down" was optional. We've had the Bush tax cuts in effect for 10+ years and the wealthy, the Corporate structure, the Banking industry has seem massive and record profits... Don't tell me any different, look around you... who's raking it in? Who's suffering? It's right in front of your eyes and you refuse to see it.

Thats right the people are hurting. So what do democrats do, why promote many of those banking and wall street crooks to this administration. But you refuse to see it.

Oh... bullshit auto.... Hank Paulson(Goldman Sachs/BushII), Donald Reagan(Merrill Lynch/Ronald Reagan)... Wall Street Dudes have been Treasury secretaries for a long time now... But that doesn't matter to you.. you just want to see your partisan self.

You don't want to see that your precious "private sector" is hosing this country and it's people....through Trade/Banking/Taxes...

 

[Full-Auto]

Yeah, no shit.... Until they realized that "trickling down" was optional. We've had the Bush tax cuts in effect for 10+ years and the wealthy, the Corporate structure, the Banking industry has seem massive and record profits... Don't tell me any different, look around you... who's raking it in? Who's suffering? It's right in front of your eyes and you refuse to see it.

Thats right the people are hurting. So what do democrats do, why promote many of those banking and wall street crooks to this administration. But you refuse to see it.

Oh... bullshit auto.... Hank Paulson(Goldman Sachs/BushII), Donald Reagan(Merrill Lynch/Ronald Reagan)... Wall Street Dudes have been Treasury secretaries for a long time now... But that doesn't matter to you.. you just want to see your partisan self.

You don't want to see that your precious "private sector" is hosing this country and it's people....through Trade/Banking/Taxes...

LOL You think the hiring was limited. Freakin hilarious. I suggest you read up.

 

[McDowell's]

fair point, that slipped my mind. FDR kinda gets a pass on his deficit, though, we sorta needed to win world war ii.

FDR's deficits began well before the war and they were implemented to stimulate the economy - the same rationale that has been used to explain away every deficit ever since.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

actually, i seem to have conceded too soon on FDR's deficits. he spent massively on the new deal and the war, but of course, he had a lot more flexibility to raise taxes. we no longer have that option, the republicans have ruled it out. so it turns out FDR's deficits were nowhere near as big as reagan's and those presidents who came after.

after the war FDR's deficits were partially paid back in the post-war boom. problem is, wars rarely end in economic booms. usually they bankrupt the nation financing them. but we were fortunate enough to have a massive industrial base post-war (it helps to win; it also helps to not be bombed) and a nice, juicy, ravaged europe to rebuild that gave us a great export market. people think the war fixed the depression but not really, it was the exports to postwar europe and japan. if you look at the graph, the debt was pretty stable after the war, ticked up in the korean war, ticked up again in the vietnam war, steadily climbs and then explodes under reagan, where we spent the USSR into bankruptcy but at the cost that we now have high, structural deficits as far as the eye can see. i think people keep expecting these wars (vietnam, korea, the cold war, iraq, afghanistan) to create a boom the way world war ii, but they don't because they haven't created an export market for us the way wwii did. so we just keep getting more and more wars, and more and more deficits.

You can't read your own source? When you adjust for inflation, three of the largest dollar deficits ever were under FDR. Reagan doesn't even make the list. The point is, even with his leeway to raise taxes which he used extensively, he ran very large deficits. He did that from pretty much the beginning of his presidency and the point was to stimulate the economy. His largest deficits were as a result of the war, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the president that started using fiscal policy to moderate the economy. You said Reagan was the "inventor" of modern day deficits. That's inaccurate no matter how you spin it.

 

[Steelplate]

Those were only the names I could think of off the top of my head... If you are going make an accusation, Make it. Name names... but...before you do... make sure you aren't talking out of your ass and past administrations haven't done the same thing.

I personally don't give a shit... it's not a partisan thing and you are trying to make it one. yeah.. part of the problem IS government. But it's not the way you think. They are LETTING these people financially rape this country... because THEY pay for their elections. It's a corrupt system... period.

 

[Full-Auto]

Those were only the names I could think of off the top of my head... If you are going make an accusation, Make it. Name names... but...before you do... make sure you aren't talking out of your ass and past administrations haven't done the same thing.

I personally don't give a shit... it's not a partisan thing and you are trying to make it one. yeah.. part of the problem IS government. But it's not the way you think. They are LETTING these people financially rape this country... because THEY pay for their elections. It's a corrupt system... period.

Try looking it up yourself. This is old news.