You're joking right? You do know a republican started the bailout of the banks, correct and Obama inherited the rest of this mess?

To be honest I was much more afraid of Obama when he was trying to work with the Republicans instead of telling them to go fuck themselves it's the democrats turn. I think he's finally starting to understand things now.

Where did you prove me wrong? Your explanation had no bearing on your accusations, as I've outlined them.

Yup. A republican started the bailout, he continued it. Obama inherited a bad economy, and made it worse on scales you can't imagine. I suggest you not start using double standards with Obama. He will either fail because he sucks, or succeed because he's good. He won't fail because it's Bush's fault and succeed because he's good. That argument has been debunked time and time again.

Possibly, but it doesn't stop him for making consistently bad decisions.

How did he make the economy worse? Examples? I'm just curious? I mean Bush took a surplus and started a war with it that got us in debt and now the economy has just proceeded along that course.

You didn't think a new president was going to get elected and presto-chango, the economy gets reset like your computer, did you?

Uhh... are you talking about Bush or Obama... because historians and people with a memory longer than 10 minutes can tell you that the bailouts were done on Bush's watch and he added 3 times as much to the deficit as Obama has so far... granted... Obama is only a year in... so I will give you that.

Continued the bailouts. Kept Bernanke. Deficit spending on astronomical levels. Stimulus spending. There has been nothing positive done about the economy. And yet his administration and Bernanke have to spin every negative to keep the markets up. It's sad. Bush fucked up the economy in 8 years. Obama has pretty much caught up with him in 1. Stupid Keynesians.

Actually, Bush initiated them and Obama continued them, thanks for the selective memory.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...ficit_2010.jpg

He didn't continue the bailouts... As a matter of fact, he has been making the banks repay the bailouts. The stock market has climbed over 4000 points since he took office, companies are starting to hire again and the stimulus has really only started working in the last couple of months because it took awhile to get projects approved and money dispersed.

I'm not happy he kept Bernanke and I can't stand Geitner... so we probably agree there. As far as Keynesian economics go... I am quite certain that the world economists know more than you or any member of Congress about that subject.

Your beliefs, misguided or not, are pretty much set and very general. Some of his stimulus has supposedly helped, but like you I have no direct access to the legit data so I'm as much in the dark as you and then would have to interpret it accurately if I could get my hands on it.

But it is scary that you probably make below 10 million dollars a year and want to get on the side of big business and the cooperations. I just don't know where you and Joe The Plumber find a way to get into their club. I'd probably be like you if they let me in too.

Do you know how to read that graph? Look at it again... you will notice that Obama's budget cuts the deficit in half in his first term and that is without repealing the Bush Tax Cuts (in that graph)... secondly, not even the CBO will project deficits beyond 5 years with impunity. Another point to mention is that Obama's budget includes Social Security... Bush's didn't.

Oh wow, how misinformed are you? The stock market has climbed 4,000 points because the administration spins everything. They've intentionally exaggerated numbers and when the reports come in, they're smaller than the expected numbers. The job loss has been astronomical and NO new permanent jobs have been created. I really don't know where you're getting your information from. Furthermore, the stimulus has done nothing positive for the economy. In fact, it's created artificial growth at the expense of deficit spending. I don't think you're well versed in economics so maybe I should move on. Oh btw, where did the money go from the banks repayment, because they certainly didn't go back to the fed, lol. Funny you criticize me when I tell you what I hear, but when you hear something, it's taken as fact. Finally, the bailouts were on Obama's watch, unless you forget history.

I know you're certain, yet being in power doesn't make you more intelligent than anyone else. I will argue that i know more than Bernanke, especially since him and I follow two different schools of thought. He follows one that doesn't work, I follow one that's been proven to work.

Wheres the money going that got paid back?

BTW, the whole world is have a bad economy if I'm not miss taken. Getting tired of the blame game, when is someone going to fix it?
The Health-care bill is being pushed thru as a deficit reduction measure, who here really believes that getting 30 million people insured is going to reduce the deficit?

Yup, I do know how to read that graph, I'm shocked you don't. Funny though, weren't you touting CBO's #s regarding the health care bill, or something else? Suddenly they're not credible. Face it, Obama MAY be smarter than Bush but he's a complete moron when economics are concerned.

Actually if you're going to have to treat 30 million people for free one way or the other, does it really matter?

You're going to have to prove my beliefs are misguided, but I doubt you can. NONE of the stimulus spending helped, do you understand? It only put us further into debt. A guy is going to buy a car in 2011. Cash for Clunkers came out and he bought a car now. Guess what, he's NOT going to buy a car in 2011 now. Common sense.

I have no idea what this is in reference to.

Yea, I'd rather fix the economy before starting to treat 30 million people when our economy collapses.

Btw, Bush's budget deficit was 1.4 trillion dollars after he left office. Obama beat him within a year. That's a fact you'll have to accept Nation..


Also

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...Than-Last-Year

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/61448

Not to mention, Obama's budget deficit hit historical highs each month.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5979279.shtml
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news...tarp/index.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/bu...my/15bank.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec...arp4-2009dec04

I am skeptical that we will see that much deficit reduction from HCR... but I don't think it will increase the deficit either... We'll have to wait and see... if it doesn't, I am sure your heroes will rush right in and fix it right? :1orglaugh

I see the quality of healthcare going up for a lot of people that couldn't afford it before, while thats a good thing, I see a lot of misuse and fraud happening. Who's going to pay for it? Top 2% incomes of the country?

I wish Ron Paul became president, and Peter Schiff became FED Chairman. They'd slowly fix out economic problems.

The guy buying the car probably wouldn't have bought a car at all, and my Joe The Plumber reference is HE WAS A FUCKING PLUMBER! Think about it.

This is 100% illogical. My example is in reference to cash for clunkers, and the logic behind it is sound. Not sure why you're arguing it.

For someone that claims to understand this stuff you sure make staments that indicate otherwise... the deficit is recurring... Bush's deficit was still 1.4 Trillion last year AND this year. He didn't arrange to have it paid before he left... lol. He passed a huge Medicare entitlement that he didn't pay for + 2 wars... so don't try and say that it's all Obama's now... he did ADD to it... yes... but most reasonable people know that he had to do some spending... regardless of what you say about your Austrian economic theory.

I don't think Ron Paul would have been effctive the way things are with the congress and senate.
I think we're fucked

Again, why don't you just concede. The minute you start appealing to a fictional majority, you're basically saying, "I don't have a counter argument". And you really need to stop bluffing regarding your understanding of economics and mine, because it's not going to look good for you. Obama's annual deficit spending has made Bush look like a cheapskate. Now Bush had 8 years to do it. Obama is going to surpass him by the end of this year. "Most reasonable" my ass. I accept your concession.

:2 cents:

Ron Paul would probably do SOME things I liked... like get us out of the business of empire building... but his domestic policy would be a disaster.

Paul or Schiff. I think they'd make Bernanke their bitch. Only problem with Paul is that his security policies flat out blow. But I'd trust them to run the country over Obama or Bush or anybody else we have thus far, any day of the week, at least economically.

Seriously, I could totally get behind a conservative candidate that would leave the religious and neo-conservative ideology behind... if only the right wing could get behind someone like that we would be in good shape... but it's not going to happen because there are way too many religious nutjobs in our country... and Palin is their poster girl.

Religious nutjobs lol? I would argue that there are more secular nutjobs. "Hey lets say there's no God so we can believe in mankind and invent moral relativism so we can do whatever the hell we want and say that it's right according to me!" Secularism is NOT the answer to our problems lol, it would do even more damage than religion.

We need to terminate mainstream economics first and foremost and replace it with either classical(has some flaws), or Austrian(true free market).

Anyway, I don't have the data right in front of me at the moment and internet image charts aren't going to do it. You should probably volunteer to help out the Republican party because it's starting to look like they are going to need all the help they can get. Finally. Thank God!

Yea, talk about misguided. I would volunteer for the Democratic party only because I feel badly for how badly they're getting their ass kicked.

Dude... look in the mirror... you are a "free market" nutjob... maybe one of these days you will realize that there is no free market... ever. You are a slave to the system just like all of us. You can keep on kidding yourself all you want but we are the batteries in the Matrix.

You realize how dumb you sound with these accusations? I can say "you're a left wing nutjob", and it will sound as ridiculous as what you're saying. I'm not advertising a true free market economy, but one with very limited government intervention, like the opposite of what we have now. It has always worked.

If they getting their ass kicked, then why are you concerned and talking all this nonsense? Why don't you just kick back and enjoy the ride? You sound like one of those people mommy pulled off the tit a little too early :1orglaugh

I'll bet you the healthcare bill passes.

Wow, sorry I mistook you for a competent human being. What we're having is called a "debate". You're naturally not part of it because you lack the ability to follow. Your insult made no sense whatsoever which doesn't surprise me at all. Run along now little one.

Yeah like before FDR took on the Robber barons, right? The tea party view of the free market system isn't realistic... without strict regulation there would be huge monopolies, they would charge whatever they wanted because they would crush competition, they would use everything in their power to enslave the world population... it's already happening... you are just too blinded by ignorance to see it. The industrial revolution changed the world in such a fundamental way that our citizenry went from 95% self employed to 95% employed within a generation. There is no way around it... but anyway... I already know this is a fruitless discussion because you and I are both convinced of our own understanding of the world. I HATE what corporations have done to our country and LOVE what they have produced... ain't that a bitch.

No, in a debate you give a certain amount of actual facts (not what you think are facts) within a certain set guideline and there are judges that make sure you stay within the rules. This is just a ranting.

Right, so you've just basically stated that you have no idea what a "debate" is.:thumbsup

You don't need strict regulation to outlaw monopolies, not sure if you understand that. Not sure why you're bringing up the Industrial Revolution either. You know the difference between the private sector and the government? The government has a printing press. Otherwise, no difference. The fact that you would think the government plays the hero shows our fundamental differences. And did you just bring up FDR? You realize it took about 15 years to get out of the great depression and that's because of the heavy regulation?

Do you even know proper English? You keep saying that so and so is too stupid to respond yet you always reply.

Wait, this has WHAT to do with proper english? ROFL what a moron.

Well... thx for playing... time for me to take my wife out so she can have some fun. peace

Religious nutjobs, secular nutjobs...how about simply voting in someone who's not a fucking nutjob? That's all I ask anymore.

I'd be on the Ron Paul bandwagon now after seeing more and more of the stuff he's said. There's not many politicians who are giving a shit about what the people want and what's best for the people and he seems to be one of them and fairly intelligent. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if Palin ends up being the Republican candidate in 2012, which would be the only way I wouldn't vote against Obama. Obama may suck, but she plain scares the crap out of me.

Palin scares the shit out of everybody.

My wife isn't quite ready yet... anyway... would you vote for Romney? He is Palin with a dick.

Romney over Obama? Sure. I'm not sure how you can realistically claim he's just a male version of Palin. What's the alternative? Obama? Lol

I doubt you will see much money spent on research if it does.

figures... I can't get past the magic underwear and I certainly wouldn't vote for a devout wackadoo <insert religion here>.

I feel the same about the epic fail that is secularism.

So you think that we should have a theocracy then... since you don't believe in separation of church and state?