Obama Is Destroying The Economy

Alta4ever · March 13, 2009

No I think you are moving the conversation to your talking point. We are talking the bad bad bad record of the WSJ economists. You take those guys and you get a bad record over the last year. So of course I am not going to put much faith in their grades of Obama.
Again I hear from Shady "Let it stick this time"

Ignore what was said, unfortunately the i told you so, will come at the expense of many millions of people who just didn't deserve it.

punked · March 13, 2009

Ignore what was said, unfortunately the i told you so, will come at the expense of many millions of people who just didn't deserve it.

I issued this challenge before then set some goal posts and let's see if Obama can reach them.

Alta4ever · March 13, 2009

I issued this challenge before then set some goal posts and let's see if Obama can reach them.

I doubt he will or can, he has shown in the weeks since taking over the presidency that it is all well just above the knowelege and ablity of this community organizer.

Oleg Bach · March 13, 2009

I doubt he will or can, he has shown in the weeks since taking over the presidency that it is all well just above the knowelege and ablity of this community organizer.

That's about who he is - as for the economy - he is not destroying it - It destroyed itself. It happened globally the virus spread like wild fire globally because we are so overly connected via the web - personally and our banking systems - so panic was instant - and the whole thing imploded..Obama might be good for social programs - but not even Jesus and Satan as a team can fix what was never their - Fiat economy is not real and real is realty - that's where we live - Illusions fade...so I just hope Obama can think outside the bank vault full of nothing and moblize the people and the spirit of the people as he was supposed to do...He seems to be giving up his own agenda..which is a fatal mistake...People are money..and the money is unhappy.

Alta4ever · March 13, 2009

That's about who he is - as for the economy - he is not destroying it - It destroyed itself. It happened globally the virus spread like wild fire globally because we are so overly connected via the web - personally and our banking systems - so panic was instant - and the whole thing imploded..Obama might be good for social programs - but not even Jesus and Satan as a team can fix what was never their - Fiat economy is not real and real is realty - that's where we live - Illusions fade...so I just hope Obama can think outside the bank vault full of nothing and moblize the people and the spirit of the people as he was supposed to do...He seems to be giving up his own agenda..which is a fatal mistake...People are money..and the money is unhappy.

It is about him and what the government sdoes to adversely effect the current economy. By spending o much borrowed money on "social programs" he is leading the economy down further.

Oleg Bach · March 13, 2009

It is about him and what the government sdoes to adversely effect the current economy. By spending o much borrowed money on "social programs" he is leading the economy down further.

The term social program sound nice, but rarely in my estimation are they effective to bring up the quality of life in the over all. Most of it is wasted money. Before you commit funds to such programs you had better be damned sure they are going to work or don't bother. Borrowing more money is fine - because you are borrowing money from a source that has no money..so it's all pretend. Its the careful circulation of this money that will bring about a positive results - I just don't believe they actually know where to put the funds..It is hit and miss - look at the billions spend on the "war on drugs" - total waste. Money is supposed to be a social lubricant...If you could take up all of the money that exists say in the USA - and instantly in one day spread it evenly to every man woman and child .

- There would be a lot of mayhem and joy - and the former rich would have most of it back in a month. It's about real education - not the acedemic kind - If we had an honest and open policy of teaching our young about how the world really works - then there might be hope..but to maintain the status quo no matter how rotten - You have to hide the truth from the majority because the belief system would fail and the rich would tumble..so those in authority do not want to have an educated population -

You must keep the people as stupid as possibel and keep total secrecy when running a nation like America - The dummying down has been going on from the begining and this secrecy and stupification of the people made this empire grow - untill the blow back finally arrived - the very dumbing down had trickled not just down ward but upward to the office of the president himself - hence - the end game is playing out. It's probably devine natural justice taking place - you send a dellusion to the people - and eventually the divine powers send a dellusion to the delluders - and that is what I see happening...Obama was supposed to bring about "the truth - the light and the new way - but he just continued with the old...it's a disappointment.

Alta4ever · March 13, 2009

There is a quote from the wise Churchill that goes something like the following

A nation is as able to tax itself into prosperity as one is able to stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle.

punked · March 13, 2009

There is a quote from the wise Churchill that goes something like the following
A nation is as able to tax itself into prosperity as one is able to stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle.

Accept he never said that. But never stopped Reagan from saying he did just as it didn't stop you.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=NCOEYJ0q-D...result#PPA14,M1

Edited March 13, 2009 by punked

blueblood · March 13, 2009

Accept he never said that. But never stopped Reagan from saying he did just as it didn't stop you.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=NCOEYJ0q-D...result#PPA14,M1

That's all right, regan was one of the people who killed off the USSR and gave us free trade with the US. The world is a much better place with his policies.

Oleg Bach · March 13, 2009

There is a quote from the wise Churchill that goes something like the following
A nation is as able to tax itself into prosperity as one is able to stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle.

That's right! A nations prosperity depends on its over all general human mood..happy people generate more happiness and in turn more money is spread about. Send the person to work and remove his money and spend it for him through taxing, makes for a person who feels they are not free - they will be unhappy and tend not to spread happiness to other which is prosperity - Let the person walk down the sunny street with a few dollars in his pocket so he can spend on what he wishes and those the are selling can have someone to sell too. The brightest sunny day will have a touch of gloom if the mans pocket are empty after a long week of labour. If you provide service for others you should be paid and in turn be able to pay others and all will be pleasant..and prosperous. To be treated like childish slaves where our parents take the money from our little job and insist you they buy you shoes with your earned cash makes for a boy who is not to thrilled about going to work ...why would he be - no one wants to be used or controled.

punked · March 13, 2009

That's all right, regan was one of the people who killed off the USSR and gave us free trade with the US. The world is a much better place with his policies.

And started the Bush trickle down policies. Sell weapons to Iran to fund terrorists in south America. Ohhhhhhhh and don't forget Union busting. Yeah the world is soooo much better for him.

blueblood · March 13, 2009

And started the Bush trickle down policies. Sell weapons to Iran to fund terrorists in south America. Ohhhhhhhh and don't forget Union busting. Yeah the world is soooo much better for him.

Union busting, hell that's even better!!!

The Soviets sell far more weapons to nut bars, where's your beef with them?

I for one enjoy my freedoms under the current system we have here, it's a shame you don't appreciate what western civilization and capitalism have done to benefit people around the world.

punked · March 13, 2009

Union busting, hell that's even better!!!
The Soviets sell far more weapons to nut bars, where's your beef with them?

I for one enjoy my freedoms under the current system we have here, it's a shame you don't appreciate what western civilization and capitalism have done to benefit people around the world.

I have beef with all weapon sales but what really gets yah is the using those sales to fund terrorists who killed, kidnapped, and bombed civilians becuase the US didn't like the democratically elected government. The Russians suck too BTW don't like Putin at all.

Oleg Bach · March 13, 2009

Union busting, hell that's even better!!!
The Soviets sell far more weapons to nut bars, where's your beef with them?

I for one enjoy my freedoms under the current system we have here, it's a shame you don't appreciate what western civilization and capitalism have done to benefit people around the world.

It does not matter if dear Uncle Capitalism drops by the house to see us kids as long as he is handing out the twenties - who cares if he kicks the dog at home and beats the wife and kids..we appreciate what he does for western civilization...and how we beneifit people around the world...it's okay if our dear old uncle sells a few guns and bombs to the other bad boys - he does not bomb us.......Capitalism in goof favour is like having to give a kiss to that old nasty Uncle with the black heads and the neck of a turtle - but we kissed him - because he gave us money -----eeeeeehhh. :lol:

Alta4ever · March 14, 2009

Accept he never said that. But never stopped Reagan from saying he did just as it didn't stop you.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=NCOEYJ0q-D...result#PPA14,M1

I never was quoting reagan,

I was quoting what I had read, which appears to have been said in 1903 by Churchill in the house of Commons

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

punked · March 14, 2009

I never was quoting reagan,
I was quoting what I had read, which appears to have been said in 1903 by Churchill in the house of Commons

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

And if you go to the link in the book you will see he never said that. Although Regan liked to say he did.

Here is another book which points out it was Regan who liked to say Churchill said that even though he didn't.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=6PpNUK5u1l...4&ct=result

Know what maybe I am being a bit harsh here. It was never recorded anywhere that Churchill said that at the time. Although he could have said anything really right? Like "I will do anything to avoid paying taxes kinda like those democrats you nail to the wall every week". I mean he could have said that right? Churchill great leader, he did hate taxes at least on himself however there is more then one way to skin a cat.

Edited March 14, 2009 by punked

Alta4ever · March 14, 2009

And if you go to the link in the book you will see he never said that. Although Regan liked to say he did.
Here is another book which points out it was Regan who liked to say Churchill said that even though he didn't.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=6PpNUK5u1l...4&ct=result

Know what maybe I am being a bit harsh here. It was never recorded anywhere that Churchill said that at the time. Although he could have said anything really right? Like "I will do anything to avoid paying taxes kinda like those democrats you nail to the wall every week". I mean he could have said that right? Churchill great leader, he did hate taxes at least on himself however there is more then one way to skin a cat.

give it up buddy, one book of 704 pages, considering, you have one book in which you have used a google seach engine to search the text is suppose to convince anyone? Considering Churchill put more words to paper than any other writer ( just one book in his history of the second world war was over 716 pages at it was one of six books), you won't find all references to Churchill in one book that was published in 1965-66. So please do you have anything more then one google search you did because a great quote with much meaning doesn't fit your view of society, economics, prosperity and government?

what Reagan said was " The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the crudest delusions which has ever befuddled the human mind."

Little different than the quote that was attributed to churchill isn't it.

punked · March 14, 2009

give it up buddy, one book of 704 pages, considering, you have one book in which you have used a google seach engine to search the text is suppose to convince anyone? Considering Churchill put more words to paper than any other writer ( just one book in his history of the second world war was over 716 pages at it was one of six books), you won't find all references to Churchill in one book that was published in 1965-66. So please do you have anything more then one google search you did because a great quote with much meaning doesn't fit your view of society, economics, prosperity and government?
what Reagan said was " The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the crudest delusions which has ever befuddled the human mind."

Little different than the quote that was attributed to churchill isn't it.

Source it then.

August1991 · March 14, 2009

Of course, Obama does have some pretty good talent of his own - Volcker, for example.
Let's give them some more time and see how they do over the medium run before passing knee-jerk reaction.

I happen to think that Summer, Geithner, Bernanke and Volcker are smart people who know about economics. Even Obama is a smart guy and while he doesn't know about economics, that may be a good thing.

OTOH, I have two comments. One, this Democrat crowd are too naive and too American. They think that they (and the State) can solve this problem. Two, they are wrong to blame Bush Jnr for this. Politically, that won't work and in fact, that's not the problem. To use a current term, the problem is systemic.

====

I'm astonished when I read about comparisons of Keynes and teh 1930s to the current crisis.

Today, modern governments take about 50% of people's incomes and use about half (25%) to buy stuff on our behalf and use the other half (another 25%) to transfer money between us. In teh 1920s, these percentages were about 10% and about 5%. IOW, governments took much less from us, bought less for us and transferred less among us. Has this increase in government brought us more stability? Is our increased wealth even due to governments (or is it due to technical changes outside of government)?

What Obama proposes is more and bigger government. In the 1930s, that might have made sense. Now, it doesn't.

Obama (and Bernanke) are like generals using tactics from the the past war to fight this one - they are like French generals using horses or the Maginot Line in WWII.

Edited March 14, 2009 by August1991

punked · March 14, 2009

Funny thing is I went back to look at American tax rates. From 24-30 the years that lead up to the great depression and which many believe helped cause it the top tax rate was 25%. Although when you look at 33-64 you know the years of growth in America the to tax bracket was 64-95%. This is really unfair though because of the war so lets look directly after the war those years of "unprecedented" American growth. 1947-1964 your top tax bracket average is 90%. Looks like America did indeed tax itself into prosperity.

msj · March 14, 2009

The state pretty much has to solve this problem because:

1) There is an aggregate demand slump in the private sector and somebody either has to pick it up or we just let it go and slide from a great recession into a great depression. (Once again, I have already pointed out the CBO output gap elsewhere).

2) The government will have to provide the leadership to implement proper regulation. Now that the deregulators have lost credibility this can be done. It's easy to blame the government for not regulating the banking industry properly in the first place but there's a reason they didn't - an honest belief by Greenspan that he didn't need to regulate the mortgage practices since the markets' self-interest would supposedly ensure the financial crisis wouldn't happen. Yeah, pretty brilliant.

3) This nonsense about size of government is ridiculous. Sure, we know government is bigger today than in the 1930's (at least the early 1930's prior to FDR). No one is talking about a permanent increase to the size of government. In fact, Obama's stimulus has a large tax cut component to it and also a large transfer component to the states which is conveniently ignored by those chicken little's who say the sky is falling because the government is getting bigger.

4) Of course politicians are going to blame W for this. The previous president/administration always gets the blame even though the roots of this stretch back decades to a philosophy where the state = bad and the unregulated private sector = good so there is no point expecting the government to try to effectively regulate the banking system in the first place since their self-interest will protect the financial system... (hmm, brings us back to point 2). Clearly nonsense.

5) The US has been focused primarily on "solving" the banking crisis since 2008. The stimulus has only come in 2009 because far too many people failed to realize the link between a credit crisis and the main street economy.

6) The fact is far too many people failed to see the credit crisis even coming. I could go back and find many interesting quotes in these forums where August poo pooed the recession and the effects of the credit crisis on main street.

Those few who did see it come got laughed at as being "Dr. Doom" and belittled for being early in their call. Of course, better too early than to not realize what's going on until we're neck deep into it.

Edited March 14, 2009 by msj

bush_cheney2004 · March 14, 2009

The state pretty much has to solve this problem because:
.....6) The fact is far too many people failed to see the credit crisis even coming. I could go back and find many interesting quotes in these forums where August poo pooed the recession and the effects of the credit crisis on main street.

Those few who did see it come got laughed at as being "Dr. Doom" and belittled for being early in their call. Of course, better too early than to not realize what's going on until we're neck deep into it.

I still think you are missing the obvious.....the "state" has to solve the problem because the state has a self interest (pun intended) and means to do so. Belittling the preachers of economic doom is hardly a new phenom, as is the worthlessness of questionable after-the-fact accuracy from economists, the NBER, or self anointed web forum experts. Markets have the right to embrace "wild exuberance" just as much as they embrace "Doom".

Recessions come and go by design.....next these experts will think they are good enough to predict the weather.

Rue · March 14, 2009

Rush is that you? I had no idea you now call yourself Slim Shady. Nice of you totake off time from your busy schedule to share yourself with us. Listen up. 50 days into his reign and you

really are screaming bloody murder.

The sky is falling in. The sky is falling in.

Listen up. We all have to cut back. In your case you will have to go on a diet and that

is not such a bad thing Rush. Come on you are morbidly obese.

Cutting back on all that medication you pop would not be a bad idea either.

Now I hate to burst your bubble Rush, but the doomsday predictions-been there done that.

Already heard it from the Bush-Chaney brigade.

Yes I know Barak Bam Bam is the anti-Christ.

Rush we could solve any concerns over oil just finding a way to refine your hair. You

have to admit you put a lot of oil in it. Little too slick. Might want to try Stephen Harper's hair spray.

That grease job due, it makes your head look like a suppository.

Listen forget about running for office. That little escapade in the Dominican Republic

with the suitcase full of Viagra, sort of ended that idea.

Americans like their heroes to be real men and not have to rely on Viagra. Then again

given the way John Wayne walked and wore that kerchief round his neck I wonder.

Rush is it true your mother named you after a hit on a bong and her boyfriend

Julio screaming oooh what a rush when she dropped you?

Dr. Phil told me.

Regards to Mrs. Rush.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Rue

sharkman · March 14, 2009

Rue, I wonder if you have much at stake in this economy? Taking pot shots at an easy target is one thing, but anyone with common sense can see that Obama's administration has been stumbling and staggering to and fro since rank inexperience has given Obama the worst of all afflictions, a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

They are already ramping up Stimulus II, although where they are going to get the money is anyone's guess since China is officially getting tired of the sugar daddy role with a spending spree teenager that obviously doesn't have the means to pay it back.

The real dangerous thing is that the Dems can pretty much pass what they want through Congress and the Senate( with an armtwist or two) and think they can save everybody. In one year, even those in denial will see that something is fundamentally wrong.

WIP · March 14, 2009

Rue, I wonder if you have much at stake in this economy? Taking pot shots at an easy target is one thing, but anyone with common sense can see that Obama's administration has been stumbling and staggering to and fro since rank inexperience has given Obama the worst of all afflictions, a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

By any chance, did you have much to say regarding the stumbling and staggering of the Bush Administration that started two wars on a credit card, gutted and ruined the effectiveness of most government departments, by appointing loyal, know-nothing imbeciles to run them? "you're doing a hell of a job, Brownie!"