Now you get mad?

[Gistok]

While I was browsing some of the right wing blogs [[you really can't call this stuff "news") looking at the amazing amount of distorted facts, I came across one that really made me LOL...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/03/ob...any-us-cities/

They're smart enought to be able to claim to calculate the "carbon footprint" of the Obama visit to Asia being as much as a US city... and yet are often clueless about the effects of carbon emission on the global environment.

How can they figure out one and not the other??.... "Intelligent Design"....

[Ray1936]

The sad part of all the above is the extreme right and the extreme left do nothing but distort facts. Ain't there no one in the middle any more besides me?

[rjk]

People were angry in 2008 when they elected someone with very limited political experience over a far more qualified candidate. Obama benifited from anger in 2008 and now he's getting pounded because of anger.
It's only fair.

[mjs]

If you think the election results were because people are mad or depressed about just the democrats or just since Obama took office, you haven't listened to the national news all week. They're very much disappointed in both parties and very very much disappointed in how Washington works in general. Seasoned Republicans are not overjoyed about the recent elections or what it means they're going to have to start doing.

[Gistok]

If you think the election results were because people are mad or depressed about just the democrats or just since Obama took office, you haven't listened to the national news all week. They're very much disappointed in both parties and very very much disappointed in how Washington works in general. Seasoned Republicans are not overjoyed about the recent elections or what it means they're going to have to start doing.

Your observation is 100% spot on!!

How is Obama going to be able to work with the Republicans in the House, if the new members are not in a compromising mood? This is not going to bode well for the USA, or either party.

And as for the Democrats... it was the moderate/conservative Democrats in the House that got decimated... not the liberal ones.

Even the Obama Health Care bill.... there are popular items in it... if it gets tweaked... so be it. But some items, such as pre-existing conditions and senior prescription cost relief... are going to be very unpopular to eliminate.

I don't envy John Boehner's task at all....

[Bcscott]

Obama's policies HAVE worked, or we'd have 30% unemployment now. They haven't worked as well as they could because he and the dems caved to the blue dogs and watered them down substantially.

Wow, thirty percent unemployment? Where the Hell did you pull that number from? If that were the case unemployment would be worse than it was during the great depression. Let me guess, you probably believe Obama "saved or created" three million jobs as well

Why don't you just say Obama's policies averted 50% unemployment and saved or created ten million jobs. There's no data to quantify a saved or created job so, if you're gonna go, go big!

Also, why do proponents of socialism [[income redistribution or "spreading the wealth around" to quote Obama) always blame the messenger and never the message? "They [[Obama's policies) haven't worked as well as they could because he and the dems caved to the blue dogs and watered them down substantially". I will forever be amazed when look at all the economic destruction Obama has wraught in the last two years and hear liberals say "Why didn't he do more?"

[Bcscott]

So you're saying we had a massive "restoration" of the military in the first 8 months of 2001, before we invaded Afghanistan? Bunker busters, predator drones, GPS-guided missiles--these were all GWB's doing?

No, not at all. I'm saying the military cuts Clinton enacted before the republican takeover in 1994 decimated our fighting force and limited our intelligence gathering capabilities. Remember the firewall between the FBI and CIA implimented under the Clinton administration? I mean, did they want to give terrorists and criminals a sporting chance? Who knows, maybe 9/11 could have been avoided had our intelligence apparatus been up to snuff?

Just to show I'm a fair guy I will lay some of the blame at the feet of the republicans who controlled congress during Clinton's time in office. They could've done more to bolster the military but the President still had his veto and the republicans were also enjoying a time of relative peace and economic prosperity.




And those devestating [[sic) effects were...? From what I recall, things had returned to normal within a year.

Um.....almost a decade later they're finally starting to make some progress at that giant hole in New York where the towers once stood. Normal? You don't fly commercial much do you. I just thought of something, if you think the economy returned to normal within in a year, that makes you the first lib to admit tax cuts work. Hey, congratulations!




Oh yeah? Bush never claimed that he "inherited a recession"? Check your Lexis-Nexis, buddy.

I didn't say "never" I said he didn't make a career of blaming his predecessor like Obama has done. Seriously, if I hear Obama say "We inherited an economy that was blah, blah, blah......." once more I'm going to shoot my TV. And even libs have to be getting sick of the car in the ditch analogy. Republicans drove the car in the ditch, fine we get it and I somewhat agree. But Obama found a cliff at the end of the ditch and drove that car right off it.

Clinton cut taxes too, which gave us the longest economic expansion in American history. But you don't remember much about that, do you?

Well, I gave the republicans some blame and that means you have to give them some credit. The economy wasn't good in 1992 or 1993, thats why the dems were swept out of office in 1994. The public wasn't happy with Clinton who was governing from the left after campaigning as a moderate. You know, exactly like Obama has done [[with nearly the same election results the other night). Things didn't start looking up until the republicans forced Clinton to govern from the center. Do you really think welfare reform and tax cuts would've happened without republicans controlling the purse strings?

Clinton and the republicans managed to enjoy the largest PEACETIME period of economic growth. Conversely, President Bush managed 52 months of economic growth after inheriting a recession, experiencing the worst terror attack ever on American soil, and fighting two wars. So when you put it in context, who's economic record is more impressive?

Some things take longer than a year and a half to fix. If you want instant gratification, you can grab your dick.

No not a year and a half, almost four years. The dems have been incontrol of congress since January 2007 and everything has gotten worse since. Are you one of those people who still defend Granholm? "Well its not her fault, she inherited a bad economy." Hmm, that one sounds vaguely familliar too. People were frustrated with out of control government spending in 2008, and they threw the bums out. The same thing happened three nights ago only this time the people were furious and threw the dems out in numbers not see since 1938.

Man we were doing so good, then you had to go and bring dick into the equation. I don't know what to tell you? If simply grabbing your dick gives you instant gratification you must be lousy in bed. Sorry, I just can't relate.

[Zacha341]

Ummn, I'll take door number 3: I am not exclusively mad at EITHER too much at this point. There's deal brokering from both parties... I'm just realizing the games afoot with both as they serve that most sublime and enduring of parties - the party of SELF-INTEREST! LOL!

Not surprisingly, at the upper realms of power and money [[not exclusive the repubs mind you) the political 'elite' behave similarly withstanding party.

And we are to soothe ourselves with the "Bush did it too" or "they do it too!" politic not too dissimilar from the justification of the Kwame admin and his peeps, etc.

....What does a President do when he has HISTORIC losses in Congress? Go to Disneyland? NO
The President takes a TWO BILLION DOLLAR vacation with over 3,000 people to India
That is TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A DAY!!!

You can run Obama but you can't hide.

[Zacha341]

Excellent point - which speaks to the issues with both parties!

If you think the election results were because people are mad or depressed about just the democrats or just since Obama took office, you haven't listened to the national news all week. They're very much disappointed in both parties and very very much disappointed in how Washington works in general. Seasoned Republicans are not overjoyed about the recent elections or what it means they're going to have to start doing.

[Zacha341]

I hear that. Though I am so-called democrat by affiliation [[ala my voting card), I am not a 'overly' loyal to look at only one side of the coin out of partisan obligation. Once you step back and look at the broader picture, you see the problems on both sides...

The sad part of all the above is the extreme right and the extreme left do nothing but distort facts. Ain't there no one in the middle any more besides me?

[Zacha341]

"Washington gone wild"? Is to cease??? No it does not [[smile)... so long as the politic of "our turn", and "they did it too" remains. Some feel we have just the level of government we should have... Opinions vary.

"Washington gone wild" has to stop sometime. Now is a good time. Sure, Bush sucked and we all know that. Obama continuing in [[and balooning) Bush's footsteps doesn't help. We can't spend money we don't have on inflated Government we don't need....

[Zacha341]

Er-uh, I get the part about "limited political experience" but what more 'qualified' candidate? McCain-Palin? I say neither offerings were great choices so we have what we have...

People were angry in 2008 when they elected someone with very limited political experience over a far more qualified candidate. Obama benefited from anger in 2008 and now he's getting pounded because of anger.
It's only fair.

[ghettopalmetto]

No not a year and a half, almost four years. The dems have been incontrol of congress since January 2007 and everything has gotten worse since.

For our benefit, kindly enumerate and describe the root causes of the current economic malaise.

Then list the laws enacted by the Democratic-controlled Congress since 2007 that have led DIRECTLY to these causes.

[kraig]

I just want to point out that, even though this thread is in my name, I didn't post this. A visitor at my house, who's been too lazy to open their own account, was actually the one who started the thread.

My personal thought is that once elected officals accept a position, they assume the responsibilities of that position. Regardless of whether or not they agree with the decisions that were made before them, the same as with virtually everyone else in society. If the average person accepts a job or responsibility, they do not have the luxury of receiving a pass for not doing the job. I would think that the highest office in the land would not be the expection to this priniciple.

As far as any racial components, they exist, but, we've seen enough Republican/Democrat fights to know that whenever one side loses the House, Senate or Presidency they go into attack made to get it back. Which I think trumps race on this issue.

[ghettopalmetto]

I just want to point out that, even though this thread is in my name, I didn't post this. A visitor at my house, who's been too lazy to open their own account, was actually the one who started the thread.

My personal thought is that once elected officals accept a position, they assume the responsibilities of that position. Regardless of whether or not they agree with the decisions that were made before them, the same as with virtually everyone else in society. If the average person accepts a job or responsibility, they do not have the luxury of receiving a pass for not doing the job. I would think that the highest office in the land would not be the expection to this priniciple.

Well, let's hear it, then. Which part of their job did the Democrats not do, as you insinuate?

Off the top of my head:

1. Implemented the TARP program begun under George W. Bush, which stabilized the financial system, and stands to make a tidy profit for us, the taxpayers.

2. Passed an economic stimulus--40% of which was tax cuts--to inject money into the economy at a time when banks weren't lending and consumers and businesses weren't able to borrow.

3. Saved two of the American automakers, who are both now making money. General Motors' upcoming IPO stands to once again make the taxpayers a tidy profit.

4. Eliminated subsidies to banks for providing and servicing federal student loans.

5. Enacted health care reform, long desired by both political parties, that not only expands coverage to an additional 30 million people, but saves $100 billion per year.

6. Provided funding for a national system of high speed rail corridors, which will create jobs and increase the economic competitiveness of our urban regions.

7. Enacted consumer credit protections to proactively ward off a future repeat of the current economic fiasco.

[rb336]

Wow, thirty percent unemployment? Where the Hell did you pull that number from? If that were the case unemployment would be worse than it was during the great depression. Let me guess, you probably believe Obama "saved or created" three million jobs as well

What do YOU think would have happened if GM and Chrysler had gone under? 300,000+ good paying jobs would have gone buh bye forever. and, btw, even conservative economists say the stimulus package staved off a far deeper recession. The reason the recovery isn't producing jobs like every other recovery did? we don't make things here anymore [[thanks to the subsidies that pay companies to move jobs overseas, which the republicans adamantly refused to eliminate, and under Dubya, almost doubled), so when demand goes up, as it has, the products being bought aren't made here, ergo no job creation.

[kraig]

Well, let's hear it, then. Which part of their job did the Democrats not do, as you insinuate?

Off the top of my head:

1. Implemented the TARP program begun under George W. Bush, which stabilized the financial system, and stands to make a tidy profit for us, the taxpayers.

2. Passed an economic stimulus--40% of which was tax cuts--to inject money into the economy at a time when banks weren't lending and consumers and businesses weren't able to borrow.

3. Saved two of the American automakers, who are both now making money. General Motors' upcoming IPO stands to once again make the taxpayers a tidy profit.

4. Eliminated subsidies to banks for providing and servicing federal student loans.

5. Enacted health care reform, long desired by both political parties, that not only expands coverage to an additional 30 million people, but saves $100 billion per year.

6. Provided funding for a national system of high speed rail corridors, which will create jobs and increase the economic competitiveness of our urban regions.

7. Enacted consumer credit protections to proactively ward off a future repeat of the current economic fiasco.

I'm actually referring to the notion of blaming the Bush Administration in general. I actually don't think that Obama is doing any finger pointing on that level. Whenever I take on an assignment, I may point out what was done in the past in order to show what needed to be done as I see things and what corrective action may be taken to avoid repeating the same mistakes. But, the responsibility of completing the assignment is mine.

Personally, I think that the President is doing a great job, your points listed being part of the reason why, and that things are getting better. My viewpoint is merely the acceptance of responsibility.

[ghettopalmetto]

Frankly, kraig, I think that where Obama needs to accept *greater* responsibility is for some of these successes. The GOP has always been terrific at tooting its own horn, even if they don't do anything for an entire Congress. Perhaps if Obama were just a tad more boisterous, people might start to [[correctly) think that even though he was handed a bad hand, he's played it pretty darn well.

I understand what you're saying, but there are people out there [[and you know who they are) that pretend all of our economic difficulties began promptly at noon on January 20, 2009. It's not incorrect to acknowledge we were already in a bad way [[and not lke the preceding eight years were all that terrific, either).

[oladub]

What do YOU think would have happened if GM and Chrysler had gone under? 300,000+ good paying jobs would have gone buh bye forever. and, btw, even conservative economists say the stimulus package staved off a far deeper recession. The reason the recovery isn't producing jobs like every other recovery did? we don't make things here anymore [[thanks to the subsidies that pay companies to move jobs overseas, which the republicans adamantly refused to eliminate, and under Dubya, almost doubled), so when demand goes up, as it has, the products being bought aren't made here, ergo no job creation.

Give me that old time keynesian religion. Under the news coverage cover of election day, the Federal Reserve announced that it was printing $600B to distribute to it's owner banks so they could make more money. It was, in effect, another huge bailout. Since then, China and Brazil have displayed anger and threatened measures to protect themselves; shades of Smoot-Hawley. The reason the Fed had to print money like Zimbabwe was because the Chinese had already lost faith in the dollar and wern't any longer expanding their purchases to keep up with US trasury sale needs. Stocks have risen because investors realize that the extra $600B will cause a bubble somewhere and it might as well be the stock market. Happy days are here again.

This takes us back to the beginning of the 1921 and 1929 crashes, the Nasdaq crash, amd the housing bubble; all created, in large part by the Fed dumping too much liquidity into the market. The excess money has to wind up somewhere but always creates bubbles which collapse. The Fed's solution is to fix the problem by doing more of what caused the problem.

Had GM and Chrysler gone bust, Americans would have bought more Fords and other car brands. Ford or Toyota America would have had to hire more workers and perhaps buy up some Chrysler factories. My guess is that some entity, perhaps Fiat, would have bought up parts of or all of Chrysler anyway. Your suggestion that 300,000 jobs would disappear assumes Americans would refuse to buy other brands of cars.

I agree that the loss of jobs to foreign countries has a lot to do with the lack of recovery but what has Obama done to get those jobs back? What Bush laws, which you referred to, had Obama reversed? Weren't some of those international trade agreements instigated by Clinton anyway? Obama hasn't done much except borrow and spend which, at best, kicks the can down the road and bogs down our future with the repayment of Obama debts. If Obamacare doesn't save $100B/year, I don't think we will see many Democrats resigning office in shame.

[Danny]

Give me that old time keynesian religion. Under the news coverage cover of election day, the Federal Reserve announced that it was printing $600B to distribute to it's owner banks so they could make more money. It was, in effect, another huge bailout. Since then, China and Brazil have displayed anger and threatened measures to protect themselves; shades of Smoot-Hawley. The reason the Fed had to print money like Zimbabwe was because the Chinese had already lost faith in the dollar and wern't any longer expanding their purchases to keep up with US trasury sale needs. Stocks have risen because investors realize that the extra $600B will cause a bubble somewhere and it might as well be the stock market. Happy days are here again.

This takes us back to the beginning of the 1921 and 1929 crashes, the Nasdaq crash, amd the housing bubble; all created, in large part by the Fed dumping too much liquidity into the market. The excess money has to wind up somewhere but always creates bubbles which collapse. The Fed's solution is to fix the problem by doing more of what caused the problem.

Had GM and Chrysler gone bust, Americans would have bought more Fords and other car brands. Ford or Toyota America would have had to hire more workers and perhaps buy up some Chrysler factories. My guess is that some entity, perhaps Fiat, would have bought up parts of or all of Chrysler anyway. Your suggestion that 300,000 jobs would disappear assumes Americans would refuse to buy other brands of cars.

I agree that the loss of jobs to foreign countries has a lot to do with the lack of recovery but what has Obama done to get those jobs back? What Bush laws, which you referred to, had Obama reversed? Weren't some of those international trade agreements instigated by Clinton anyway? Obama hasn't done much except borrow and spend which, at best, kicks the can down the road and bogs down our future with the repayment of Obama debts. If Obamacare doesn't save $100B/year, I don't think we will see many Democrats resigning office in shame.

Execellent point! We are living in the "world of fools!" where backwards people make all the laws. Where people blaming people for their mistakes. There is no quick fix to all its global problems. Only repair the cracks before its gets larger. Politics and ecomonics in the U.S. is not easy, one slip and this national will fall faster than a blink of an eye.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

There is no utopia

NEDA, I MISS YOU SO!

[partyhardy]

No not a year and a half, almost four years. The dems have been incontrol of congress since January 2007 and everything has gotten worse since. Are you one of those people who still defend Granholm? "Well its not her fault, she inherited a bad economy." Hmm, that one sounds vaguely familliar too. People were frustrated with out of control government spending in 2008, and they threw the bums out. The same thing happened three nights ago only this time the people were furious and threw the dems out in numbers not see since 1938.

Man we were doing so good, then you had to go and bring dick into the equation. I don't know what to tell you? If simply grabbing your dick gives you instant gratification you must be lousy in bed. Sorry, I just can't relate.

Why does everyone think that economic policy is an instantaneous thing?

[mjs]

Case in point- After repealing Glass-Steagall, it took eight years to crash the economy the hardest its seen since the great depression that created the law in the first place.

[ghettopalmetto]

This takes us back to the beginning of the 1921 and 1929 crashes, the Nasdaq crash, amd the housing bubble; all created, in large part by the Fed dumping too much liquidity into the market. The excess money has to wind up somewhere but always creates bubbles which collapse. The Fed's solution is to fix the problem by doing more of what caused the problem.

You don't care for context too much, do ya Oladub? Must be nice to live in a world where everything is in easy Black and White. Spend Money Bad. Save Money Good.

The Fed is pumping liquidity into the market because, as one of its two Congressionally-mandated responsibilities, it has to regulate the monetary supply. Right now, inflation is well below the 2% Fed target rate. Since interest rates are virtually ZERO, this is the only tool they have at their disposal to increase the money supply and ward off deflation.

[oladub]

GP: "You don't care for context too much, do ya Oladub? Must be nice to live in a world where everything is in easy Black and White. Spend Money Bad. Save Money Good."

Right. If you want to spend your money fine but I tire of you stealing mine or my kids'.

The Fed is pumping liquidity into the market because, as one of its two Congressionally-mandated responsibilities, it has to regulate the monetary supply. Right now, inflation is well below the 2% Fed target rate. Since interest rates are virtually ZERO, this is the only tool they have at their disposal to increase the money supply and ward off deflation.

The unconstitutional fed actually been charged with has four Congressionally abdicated responsibilities. The Fed's mandate is "to promote sustainable growth, high levels of employment, stability of prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar and moderate long-term interest rates."

1. to promote sustainable growth
-The Federal Reserve has failed at this. Growth is not keeping up with population.

2. [[to promote) high levels of employment
-Unemployment is officially stuck at 9.6%. Failure number 2.

3. [[to promote) stability of prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar.
-The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Since then, the dollar has lost 96% of it's spending power. Super failure.

4. [[to) moderate long-term interest rates.
-Some success here. Interest rates are low largely because the Fed is flooding economic markets with it's printing press money and sacrificing the value of the dollar to do so.

[Wingnatic]

'' The other side of that coin, of course, is that the Republicans constantly remind us that it's not the government's responsibility to create jobs ''
But its all politicians jobs to protect our jobs and economy for which they all have been failing us miserably by not addressing unfair trade practices . Look it up if you want buts its fact that South Korea exports 500,000 auto's into the U.S. while only allowing 50,000 of our cars into their country and this is just a small example of what many nations are doing to us , flooding our markets while limiting what we can put in their markets . S. Korea had promised to let more of our products into their markets , they have not done so . Their competing with China and could care less about the U.S. Many countries [[Canada, China etc .) have a sort of protectionism where so much of a % of what materials they use to produce something has to be made at home . Not us............. oh no that would be competition and piss them off if we put any fair trade rules into effect . Here's a great example of what China is currently doing [[and I really hope you read the article . Our politicians whether be Republican or Democrat owe it to us to address this problem asap .
U.S.-China trade tensions won't blow away

http://www.freep.com/article/2010102...on-t-blow-away

Mad would be an understatement .