Way to go Obama!

[Mr. T]

Ruining the economy is the GOP strategy.


They will obfuscate, oppose, and sabotage any measures that might alleviate the economic "crisis" they created while declaring that they have the solution - lower taxes for the rich.


Senator Mitch McConnell said the goal of the GOP is to to get the Black man out of the White House.

First it is not the GOP's strategy to weaken the economy, only a claim by the left supports that theory.

You need to take into account that Obama despises the rich and doesn't care if they have to pay out more in taxes. He sees them as an endless means to paying for every little handout and social program that he uses to buy votes.

If this trend continues at some point you will see the 1% of the richest Americans simply move all of their assets off shore so they will be able to protect their wealth from being looted.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, we were on a path to debt reduction and balanced budgets at the end of the 1990s (to clean up the mess that Reagan left). Then the people you vote for got control of the government and blew the whole damn thing up.

And I find it hilarious that at the same time you are complaining about government debt, you praise Reagan. Hilarious.

The 'mess' Reagan left? ROFLMAO.... we had 18 years of a bull market. An economy that was booming, with only the Bush 'I raised taxes' recession of the early 1990's as a blip. The tech/internet/telecom boom of the 1990's was made possible by the more tax friendly and deregulation policies of Reagan.

What blew up was the tech/telecom/internet boom of the 1990's you dolt. That happened under CLINTON. CLINTON repealed Glass Steagall which allowed the investment banks to merge with retail and removed the firewalls that had previously existed between the two.

Yes, Reagan had $1.6 Trillion in debt.... AS DID CLINTON. Yet Reagan faced a far worse economy when he took office than did Clinton. Clinton had the benefit of the tech boom and STILL he raised debt by $1.6 TRILLION.

No question the two Bush's were horrid fiscally speaking.... Bush 1 raised debt by $1.4 Trillion in four years. Bush 2 by $5 Trilliion. Now we have your messiah who has already raised it by $3 Trillion.

It is quite comical how you never seem to recall who was in charge of Congress and hence the BUDGET/Spending during Reagan and Clinton. I wonder why?

 

[Damocles]

You crack me up. The trouble with what you are saying is that it bears absolutely no relation to reality. Sound bytes aren't reality. They're sound bytes. You can spin an argument that it's all Obama's fault and you are doing a good job of it, but that doesn't make it so. If you actually read what independent analysts have to say about the stimulus, the deficit reduction measure the Republicans insisted upon and the most recent jobs bill it's quite clear what is going on. But people don't read that stuff, you included apparently.

So it'll probably work. Most people will just blame the President. That's why the Republicans in the House will do everything in their power to prevent the economy from improving and will work their hardest to ensure that the economy still sucks a year from now. It's unfortunate, because a lot of people will suffer unnecessarily, but that's where we are.


Edit: And one more thing, the CBO revisions were based on the assumption that the Budget Control Act is implemented. There's your austerity. And the downward revisions are the result.

Oh, I read it. However, I disagree with them and read more than just the shills that you call "independent". Apparently you believe that only those who agree are "independent" and worthy of a good read and all else should be ignored. The reality is, Obama spent tons of stimulus on companies like Solyndra, that simply had a poor business model and weren't creating jobs at a level necessary to do any measure of good for the economy.

It isn't going to be difficult to cut to Obama singing the praises of Solyndra, then stories of its spectacular failure. Of that stupid electric box car company, and its failure. Of that <insert company here> and stories of its bankruptcy.

His policy of building the economy on non-existent technology and rejecting current measures to bridge the technology gap is turning into the GOP's clearest election campaign lead. The man cannot lead us where he wants to go, because he doesn't have a map and hasn't hired any guides.

 

[Bonestorm]

Oh, I read it. However, I disagree with them and read more than just the shills that you call "independent". Apparently you believe that only those who agree are "independent" and worthy of a good read and all else should be ignored. The reality is, Obama spent tons of stimulus on companies like Solyndra, that simply had a poor business model and weren't creating jobs at a level necessary to do any measure of good for the economy.

Right. You ignore reality and prefer sound bytes. We've covered that ground already.

It isn't going to be difficult to cut to Obama singing the praises of Solyndra, then stories of its spectacular failure. Of that stupid electric box car company, and its failure. Of that <insert company here> and stories of its bankruptcy.

His policy of building the economy on non-existent technology and rejecting current measures to bridge the technology gap is turning into the GOP's clearest election campaign lead. The man cannot lead us where he wants to go, because he doesn't have a map and hasn't hired any guides.

I agree that its easy to run against Obama. And GOP economic policies make the economy worse while they can just blame Obama. Politically, it's a good thing the GOP has going for it. The only unfortunate downsideis the unnecessary suffering of millions of people. Whatever it takes to win, though.

 

[Bonestorm]

The 'mess' Reagan left? ROFLMAO.... we had 18 years of a bull market. An economy that was booming, with only the Bush 'I raised taxes' recession of the early 1990's as a blip. The tech/internet/telecom boom of the 1990's was made possible by the more tax friendly and deregulation policies of Reagan.

I believe you were complaining about government debt. Yes, Reagan left a mess on that score. He cut taxes and substantially increased spending.

What blew up was the tech/telecom/internet boom of the 1990's you dolt. That happened under CLINTON. CLINTON repealed Glass Steagall which allowed the investment banks to merge with retail and removed the firewalls that had previously existed between the two.

Again, I'm not talking about the economy. I'm talking about government debt and finances. At the end of the 1990s budget gaps were closed and debt reduction was a realistic possibility. Until the Bush tax cuts.

Yes, Reagan had $1.6 Trillion in debt.... AS DID CLINTON. Yet Reagan faced a far worse economy when he took office than did Clinton. Clinton had the benefit of the tech boom and STILL he raised debt by $1.6 TRILLION.

And, in percentage of GDP terms?

No question the two Bush's were horrid fiscally speaking.... Bush 1 raised debt by $1.4 Trillion in four years. Bush 2 by $5 Trilliion. Now we have your messiah who has already raised it by $3 Trillion.

Reagan was horrid fiscally speaking. GHWB tried to take care of the problems Reagan left and was excoriated for it.

It is quite comical how you never seem to recall who was in charge of Congress and hence the BUDGET/Spending during Reagan and Clinton. I wonder why?

No, I recall. I just don't find it as important as you do.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You crack me up. The trouble with what you are saying is that it bears absolutely no relation to reality. Sound bytes aren't reality. They're sound bytes. You can spin an argument that it's all Obama's fault and you are doing a good job of it, but that doesn't make it so. If you actually read what independent analysts have to say about the stimulus, the deficit reduction measure the Republicans insisted upon and the most recent jobs bill it's quite clear what is going on. But people don't read that stuff, you included apparently.

So it'll probably work. Most people will just blame the President. That's why the Republicans in the House will do everything in their power to prevent the economy from improving and will work their hardest to ensure that the economy still sucks a year from now. It's unfortunate, because a lot of people will suffer unnecessarily, but that's where we are.


Edit: And one more thing, the CBO revisions were based on the assumption that the Budget Control Act is implemented. There's your austerity. And the downward revisions are the result.

Your spouting off Dem talking points and sound bytes is ok, but Damo is the one not paying attention?

Also.... regarding your edit.... you are an idiot. Spending/deficit cuts currently projected do not effect GDP growth in 2011 and 2012.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I believe you were complaining about government debt. Yes, Reagan left a mess on that score. He cut taxes and substantially increased spending.

LMAO.... yes and in NO way is Reagan even close to being in the same boat as the Bush's and Obama. Not even close. Reagan did EXACTLY what should be done today with regards to taxes. He lowered marginal rates and he eliminated loopholes and deductions. The spending was due to the DEM LED CONGRESS. Could Reagan have put up more of a fight.... yes... but bottom line it was a DEM Led Congress controlling the purse strings.

Add in the FACT that Reagan had to rebuild the military and help the economy recover from the nightmare that was Jimmy Carter... and while certainly not ideal, the deficit spending is somewhat justified.

Again, I'm not talking about the economy. I'm talking about government debt and finances. At the end of the 1990s budget gaps were closed and debt reduction was a realistic possibility. Until the Bush tax cuts.

ROFLMAO... you do understand that economic conditions play a role in whether or not debt can be paid down? Without the boom the Republican Congress never would have come close to balancing the budget. You do understand that in one of the GREATEST economic booms our country has seen..... CLINTON STILL RAISED THE DEBT by 1.6 Trillion?

And, in percentage of GDP terms?

Percentage of GDP is irrelevant. To compare you adjust for inflation. That is it. The fact that Reagan set Bush and Clinton up for booming economies is a NEGATIVE for those two to have raised the debt so much. A dollar by dollar comparison (adjusted for inflation) is what matters.

Reagan was horrid fiscally speaking. GHWB tried to take care of the problems Reagan left and was excoriated for it.

LMAO.... you mean the Dem led Congress was horrid. What exactly did Bush 1 do to 'take care of the problems'?

No, I recall. I just don't find it as important as you do.

Of course you don't .... because it paints your beloved party as the fiscally irresponsible one under Reagan and Bush 1 and shows the Reps as the fiscally responsible party under Clinton. Now since that time both parties have taken a dive off a cliff with each trying to see just how deep they can bury us.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

SuperFreaky conveniently ignores - or is ignorant of - two facts about Reagan (St. Alzheimer):


1. Reagan raised taxes


2. Reagan saddled the American people with massive deficits


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Historical_context

Start spinning your way out those realities, Freaky.


Today's GOP wants us to believe Reagan only cut spending and taxes.....the fact is, he raised both.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

First it is not the GOP's strategy to weaken the economy, only a claim by the left supports that theory. You need to take into account that Obama despises the rich and doesn't care if they have to pay out more in taxes. He sees them as an endless means to paying for every little handout and social program that he uses to buy votes. If this trend continues at some point you will see the 1% of the richest Americans simply move all of their assets off shore so they will be able to protect their wealth from being looted.

Read it and weep:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4000780...-leaders-top-goal-make-obama--term-president/

 

[Rune]

What leads you to believe their revisions are incorrect? This is what happens when governments enact austerity policies in the midst of a sluggish economy. Austerity slows economic growth.

Only because Bush used their projections to justify his tax cuts as affordable, which they clearly were not.

 

[Rune]

Which is why you quote them religiously when their conclusions support your big government programs, right?

You must have me confused with someone who has quoted them, since I never have.

 

[Rune]

They even gave him 2.4 Trillion more to spend and he's trying to do it with relish. The reality is the "stimulus" just didn't get the job done, and the Administration is trying to blame its failure on the House.

The stimulus did work, just not well.

The reason it didn't work well is too little money was spent too slowly. That in itself is austerity.

The house spent it's first year futily trying to reverse Obama Care rather than trying to create a business enviroment conducive to job creation, and their second year (so far) obstructing the needed increase of the debt ceiling.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Rune]

The reality is, Obama spent tons of stimulus on companies like Solyndra, that simply had a poor business model and weren't creating jobs at a level necessary to do any measure of good for the economy.

Solyndra was a victim of China flooding cheap panels on the market, causing a 42% drop in the cost of panels. A business model cannot predict such an event.

3 other U.S. panel manufactures are also filing bankruptcy as a result of the chinese flood, but instead of competitive tarrifs, we blame Obama as more and more of our manufacturing capacity and jobs are shipped to China.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The GOP doesn't give a fuck about jobs, the economy, or anything except

1. Getting the Negro out of the White House
2. Giving the rich more of everything except taxes

Need proof?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4000780...-leaders-top-goal-make-obama--term-president/

 

[Damocles]

The stimulus did work, just not well.

The reason it didn't work well is too little money was spent too slowly. That in itself is austerity.

The house spent it's first year futily trying to reverse Obama Care rather than trying to create a business enviroment conducive to job creation, and their second year (so far) obstructing the needed increase of the debt ceiling.

So your position is: Obama was given exactly what he asked for, spent it exactly like he wanted, had control over both houses of congress, the capability and the reality of a signed blank check, and the only thing he did wrong was he didn't quite raise that debt enough or spend more than he asked for (although he did, QE1 and QE2)? That everything worked perfectly except Obama just didn't raise that debt level enough?

I think you should run on that. I think every Democrat should run on that. Make it the central piece of your argument.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Solyndra was a victim of China flooding cheap panels on the market, causing a 42% drop in the cost of panels. A business model cannot predict such an event.

3 other U.S. panel manufactures are also filing bankruptcy as a result of the chinese flood, but instead of competitive tarrifs, we blame Obama as more and more of our manufacturing capacity and jobs are shipped to China.

The DOE and independent analysis of Solyndra showed the company was a RISKY investment... yet Obama threw money at it anyway.... because his billionaire oil tycoon donor buddy wanted him to... and you know Obama can't say no to his billionaire friends.

 

[Bonestorm]

The DOE and independent analysis of Solyndra showed the company was a RISKY investment... yet Obama threw money at it anyway.... because his billionaire oil tycoon donor buddy wanted him to... and you know Obama can't say no to his billionaire friends.

Isn't the fact that it was a risky investment kind of the point of the government making the investment. If it were a sure thing, the company would need money from the government. Private investors would be lining up to fund it.

 

[Damocles]

Solyndra was a victim of China flooding cheap panels on the market, causing a 42% drop in the cost of panels. A business model cannot predict such an event.

3 other U.S. panel manufactures are also filing bankruptcy as a result of the chinese flood, but instead of competitive tarrifs, we blame Obama as more and more of our manufacturing capacity and jobs are shipped to China.

A business model cannot predict competition? Total fiction. That Chinese company didn't tool up after Solyndra was created. Obama had two full years with total control over both houses, the White House, and no effort was made to instill tariffs and at the same time China's "most favored" status was renewed, not changed by adding tariffs. It was Obama's policy not to instill tariffs... Yet you attempt to blame that on some other fictional nonsense such as "They couldn't have foreseen that a company that existed when they started could possibly make stuff it was already making!"? What?

 

[Damocles]

Right. You ignore reality and prefer sound bytes. We've covered that ground already.

LOL. Only in the world of the partisan "Reality" becomes whatever pundit agrees with your talking point list? I don't ignore reality, I underline it and you call it "talking points".

I agree that its easy to run against Obama. And GOP economic policies make the economy worse while they can just blame Obama. Politically, it's a good thing the GOP has going for it. The only unfortunate downsideis the unnecessary suffering of millions of people. Whatever it takes to win, though.

There you go again... when reality doesn't fit what you want to see, just call it talking points and say it is "their fault"...

Shoot, Obama is trying to say that even Solyndra loans were Bush's fault because the company started the process to get the loans while Bush was in office... Yeah, start filling out forms and that makes it "Bush's fault"...

He can't stop and even make an attempt at introsection, even when he underlined his "new green economy" with the company with a speech at the fricking company... This economy is his baby, he bought it with his stimulus, he paid for it with QE1, QE2, (is QE3 happening now?), and his policy is still failing. That is reality. The first stimulus was supposed to be spent on "infrastructure" in the schools. I notice that his second request is making the same claim... What happened to that money?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

LOL. Only in the world of the partisan "Reality" becomes whatever pundit agrees with your talking point list? I don't ignore reality, I underline it and you call it "talking points". There you go again... when reality doesn't fit what you want to see, just call it talking points and say it is "their fault"...Shoot, Obama is trying to say that even Solyndra loans were Bush's fault because the company started the process to get the loans while Bush was in office... Yeah, start filling out forms and that makes it "Bush's fault"...He can't stop and even make an attempt at introsection, even when he underlined his "new green economy" with the company with a speech at the fricking company... This economy is his baby, he bought it with his stimulus, he paid for it with QE1, QE2, (is QE3 happening now?), and his policy is still failing. That is reality. The first stimulus was supposed to be spent on "infrastructure" in the schools. I notice that his second request is making the same claim... What happened to that money?

Devising the scheme, passing the enabling legislation and signing it into law clearly exculpates the GOP from any blame.

After all, the Black guy was in office when Solyndra folded.