why is the Economy so good under Obumba?

[bigrebnc1775]

CNNMoney - Business, financial and personal finance news the stock market is doing great and Unemployment is down.. why are things doing so well?

The stock market is run and controlled by speculators the unemployment numbers are controlled by obama's labor department. You do the math.

Since you have not provided a source, your simplistic statement is meaningless.

Are you stupid, or do you live under a rock?

 

[KevinWestern]

What exactly is my dishonesty?
As for your dishonesty blaming just bush and not the democrats with a junior senator obama. That is the dishonesty of most democrats.

BigReb - I called you dishonest for twisting my words around.

I said:

..by the time Obama took office in 2008, the economy had already failed. The housing bubble burst in 2006, and our country was losing about 700,00 jobs per month the day Bush passed the steering wheel to the new guy.

If there ever was a time the government could have stopped the economy from failing, you'll have to look back to the Clinton years and the Bush W. years.

then you said:

All the failed government policy began with Bush? Who would have guess a liberal would make such a suggestion.

Firstly, I never said that Obama wasn't responsible for any "failed policy", I simply said he wasn't the cause of the recession because the economy had already failed by the time he took office.

Secondly, you accuse me of blaming Bush for "all" of the failed government policy (and then call me a "liberal"), even though I explicitly name - right there - the "Clinton years" as a possible source of the recession.



.
.

 

[RDD_1210]

What exactly is my dishonesty?
As for your dishonesty blaming just bush and not the democrats with a junior senator obama. That is the dishonesty of most democrats.

BigReb - I called you dishonest for twisting my words around.

I said:

..by the time Obama took office in 2008, the economy had already failed. The housing bubble burst in 2006, and our country was losing about 700,00 jobs per month the day Bush passed the steering wheel to the new guy.

If there ever was a time the government could have stopped the economy from failing, you'll have to look back to the Clinton years and the Bush W. years.

then you said:

All the failed government policy began with Bush? Who would have guess a liberal would make such a suggestion.

Firstly, I never said that Obama wasn't responsible for any "failed policy", I simply said he wasn't the cause of the recession because the economy had already failed by the time he took office.

Secondly, you accuse me of blaming Bush for "all" of the failed government policy (and then call me a "liberal"), even though I explicitly name - right there - the "Clinton years" as a possible source of the recession.



.
.

Save your energy. As soon as someone doesn't agree with them 100% on every issue they are considered a liberal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Kevin,

You are attempting to have a rational discussion with an imbecile.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What exactly is my dishonesty?
As for your dishonesty blaming just bush and not the democrats with a junior senator obama. That is the dishonesty of most democrats.

BigReb - I called you dishonest for twisting my words around.

I said:

..by the time Obama took office in 2008, the economy had already failed. The housing bubble burst in 2006, and our country was losing about 700,00 jobs per month the day Bush passed the steering wheel to the new guy.

If there ever was a time the government could have stopped the economy from failing, you'll have to look back to the Clinton years and the Bush W. years.

then you said:

All the failed government policy began with Bush? Who would have guess a liberal would make such a suggestion.

Firstly, I never said that Obama wasn't responsible for any "failed policy", I simply said he wasn't the cause of the recession because the economy had already failed by the time he took office.

Secondly, you accuse me of blaming Bush for "all" of the failed government policy (and then call me a "liberal"), even though I explicitly name - right there - the "Clinton years" as a possible source of the recession.



.
.

It's not being dishonest knowing what direction you are about to take and stopping you, that's not being dishonest that's just derailing your argument before you can make.
I said I know where you were going we've been there before blame bush blame bush blame bush. Now let's also blame the democrats with a junior senator obama. Or are you still hung up on blaming bush?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Kevin,

You are attempting to have a rational discussion with an imbecile.

when a liberal can have a rational discussion let me know. You aren't rational lone clown boy.

 

[KevinWestern]

What exactly is my dishonesty?
As for your dishonesty blaming just bush and not the democrats with a junior senator obama. That is the dishonesty of most democrats.

BigReb - I called you dishonest for twisting my words around.

I said:



then you said:

All the failed government policy began with Bush? Who would have guess a liberal would make such a suggestion.

Firstly, I never said that Obama wasn't responsible for any "failed policy", I simply said he wasn't the cause of the recession because the economy had already failed by the time he took office.

Secondly, you accuse me of blaming Bush for "all" of the failed government policy (and then call me a "liberal"), even though I explicitly name - right there - the "Clinton years" as a possible source of the recession.



.
.

It's not being dishonest knowing what direction you are about to take and stopping you, that's not being dishonest that's just derailing your argument before you can make.
I said I know where you were going we've been there before blame bush blame bush blame bush. Now let's also blame the democrats with a junior senator obama. Or are you still hung up on blaming bush?

For the third time (maybe fourth?) I specifically point to the Clinton years as part of the "root" cause (legislatively speaking) for the recession. Check out Glass-Steagall repeal (1993).

The problem with having a discussion with people like you is that you clearly pay zero attention to any of the words I'm saying, so what's even the point?

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Kevin,

You are attempting to have a rational discussion with an imbecile.

when a liberal can have a rational discussion let me know. You aren't rational lone clown boy.

Big, with posts like these you are actually further validating LoneLaughter's comments. Tone down the aggressive partisan tone, it does you no favors..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Kevin,

You are attempting to have a rational discussion with an imbecile.

when a liberal can have a rational discussion let me know. You aren't rational lone clown boy.

Big, with posts like these you are actually further validating LoneLaughter's comments. Tone down the aggressive partisan tone, it does you no favors..

You're saying I can't be rational? You're right I can't be rational with most liberals because they are irrational. I fight fire with fire, it's people who have been rational with liberals that have brought us to the point we are today.

 

[KevinWestern]

when a liberal can have a rational discussion let me know. You aren't rational lone clown boy.

Big, with posts like these you are actually further validating LoneLaughter's comments. Tone down the aggressive partisan tone, it does you no favors..

You're saying I can't be rational? You're right I can't be rational with most liberals because they are irrational. I fight fire with fire, it's people who have been rational with liberals that have brought us to the point we are today.

So let me get this straight, the reason America is at "the point we are today" (assuming you're talking about the recession) is because people have been "rational" when talking to liberals?

Are you suggesting that the way we fix that is to talk "irrationally" to liberals? How does that make sense?

...But then again, I guess it kind of DOES make sense given that you're being intentionally irrational at this point, right?

I'm lost, my friend.
.
.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Big, with posts like these you are actually further validating LoneLaughter's comments. Tone down the aggressive partisan tone, it does you no favors..

You're saying I can't be rational? You're right I can't be rational with most liberals because they are irrational. I fight fire with fire, it's people who have been rational with liberals that have brought us to the point we are today.

So let me get this straight, the reason America is at "the point we are today" (assuming you're talking about the recession) is because people have been "rational" when talking to liberals?

Are you suggesting that the way we fix that is to talk "irrationally" to liberals?

That doesn't make any sense, but then again I guess it kind of does make sense, given that you're being intentionally irrational at this point, right?

I'm lost, my friend.
.
.

You're being irrational, if you don't understand what I said. It's more than just the economy and liberals are in both party's

 

[LoneLaugher]

Big Reb,

Have you made any statements in this thread that an impartial observer might consider to be hyperbolic or purely rhetorical?

 

[RDD_1210]

Big Reb,

Have you made any statements in this thread that an impartial observer might consider to be hyperbolic or purely rhetorical?

You're going to have to use smaller words if you expect a response.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Big Reb,

Have you made any statements in this thread that an impartial observer might consider to be hyperbolic or purely rhetorical?

You're going to have to use smaller words if you expect a response.

OK.

Big Reb,

Have you made any statements in this thread that an impartial observer might consider to be hyperbolic or purely rhetorical?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Big Reb,

Have you made any statements in this thread that an impartial observer might consider to be hyperbolic or purely rhetorical?

You're going to have to use smaller words if you expect a response.

Here are some simple little words that you may understand. YOU ARE AN IDIOT,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Big Reb,

Have you made any statements in this thread that an impartial observer might consider to be hyperbolic or purely rhetorical?

Has anyone done that? No I don't think they have. you included.

 

[auditor0007]

The economy has done well, and bad, under Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, and so on.

Just shows...the private sector can thrive DESPITE bad government. South Carolina's government is about one step above the Congo. But that state's economy has been booming the past few years, bringing countless jobs from other states here. WHy? Because the even the small, inept GOP govt running this state can't **** it up.

Yep. SC's GOP led government is a clusterfuck, but thats the point, it is SMALL enough that even being that fucked up it doesn't ruin the economy. Meanwhile, states with BIG liberal gov'ts, like Illinois, Michigan, Washington State, have all lost jobs to South Carolina because of big labor and high taxes.

They've lost jobs to states like South Carolina due to lower wages. I'm not certain that is a good thing. It is much of the reason that wages have stagnated so much. Productivity has increased dramatically while wages remain the same or have actually dropped. If wages had risen, people would have more money to spend, and that would lead to more employment and a stronger economy. Instead, increases in income have only gone to those at the very top. Those at the very top don't spend much of that money. Supposedly they invest it which in turn should lead to greater job growth, but we have seen it isn't working that way. Companies are sitting on trillions in cash because they know there isn't a high enough demand for their products and services because people aren't making enough money. It's a vicious cycle working in reverse of the way we want it to. Basically what is happening is that American businesses are shooting themselves in the foot by not paying employees for increases in productivity.

 

[Staidhup]

The fact remains the economy is a freaking mess, and yes the current president is culpable in that he has no vision nor understanding of budgets, economics, and the workings of this quasi "free market". It has become apparent that the disconnect between reality and academia is too overwhelming for him to grasp. What should concern and alarm all Americans is that excluding Japan we have the largest corporate taxes of any industrialized country, one of the highest personal income tax rates (fed + state) in the world, and have driven private sector jobs off shore in the name of fairness. So what has this president accomplished in 3.5 years, massive debt, deficits, simply nothing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The fact remains the economy is a freaking mess, and yes the current president is culpable in that he has no vision nor understanding of budgets, economics, and the workings of this quasi "free market". It has become apparent that the disconnect between reality and academia is too overwhelming for him to grasp. What should concern and alarm all Americans is that excluding Japan we have the largest corporate taxes of any industrialized country, one of the highest personal income tax rates (fed + state) in the world, and have driven private sector jobs off shore in the name of fairness. So what has this president accomplished in 3.5 years, massive debt, deficits, simply nothing.

You have said it. Can you prove it. Or.....is this your opinion?

Would you say that President Obama has realized his agenda for the economy?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Obama and GOP Offer Two Visions of America: 'We're in It Together' vs. 'You're on Your Own' | Jared Bernstein | Politics News | Rolling Stone