Why hate Obama?

[CHIF8008]

we are all gonna die :) awesome

[mrsleeve]

^

No not all of us.

[NKRoberts]

What gets me is that everyone expects the economy to be completely repaired in just a few years. Nobody has any patience these days. As I mentioned earlier, not even Reagan could turn around the economy in his time in less than 3 years. Since this is a car forum, maybe I'll try putting this in terms we can all understand. The economy is not a 1990 M3 Sport Evo that handles like its on rails. "Driving" an economy is more like driving a 1947 Ford pickup with bad shocks, bald tires, in dense fog, in the middle of the night. It doesn't respond quickly, you've got to plan your moves well ahead, and even then there is a chance of going in the ditch.

I think he has taken us into a ditch as well.

[Vedubin01]

the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That's the fastest increase under any president ever.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/08/obama-national-debt.html

[NKRoberts]

the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That's the fastest increase under any president ever.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...onal-debt.html

Give him a break he's driving a 1947 pickup

[Vedubin01]

Give him a break he's driving a 1947 pickup

Thats one expensive restoration.

[Morrison]

the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That's the fastest increase under any president ever.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...onal-debt.html

Is that too much? Is it not enough perhaps? What is the ideal amount to be spending in your opinion? Is it maybe that you take issue with how the funds are being used or a combination thereof? The reason I ask is because what Barack is doing here is implementing basic keynesian economic principles. Or do you support a more monetarist economic policy such as that employed by Great Britain during the 80's? FYI, it was a dismal failure for them.

Now for some history: Even as far back as FDR, we can see that his New Deal, which was keynesian in nature, significantly reduced unemployment from 24.9% in 1933 to 14.3% in 1937 and increased the GDP by 34%. The economy then took a second but shallower dip from 1937 to 1941, when all of a sudden, bam, a whole 'nother level of government spending took off with our jump into WWII. After seeing this, most post-war politicians have tended to base their policy off keynesian principles.

Well then, why you ask, is it not working so effectively right now? My response to that is two-fold. For starters, would you care to predict where we'd be right now if Big O had taken a "let's let the economy work itself out" approach? Secondly, we just had 8 years of massive keynesian spending under Bush. Oh that's right, you know I was going there, blaming ole Bushy. But seriously, the spending he did on the Iraq war was serving to bolster the economy we enjoyed during the early 2000's. The downside to keynesian intervention is that its effects are short lived and meant to be used as more of a jumpstart, not life support. So by the time "O" took office much of that proverbial keynesian adrenal gland was run dry. The only thing left to try at that point was to try to squeeze the fucker harder (ratchet up spending even more).

I read the writing on the walls too, but I tend to read between the lines and check the source of those who have been writing on it.

[Vedubin01]

^^^ do you balance your check book each month?

[Morrison]

I'm not sure how this applicable, but I'll play. I write one check a month to my landlord and I do not jot it down in any sort of book. All other bills are handled through online banking and I don't jot down those amounts either. I use a debit card when spending on any other items throughout the month. Those also are not written down. I run a surplus at the end of each month by about $1,000 on average.

Comical one-liners that lack substance show nothing but evasion of the questions I posed in the first paragraph.

[LBJefferies]

^^^ do you balance your check book each month?

What decade are you living in?

[HarryPotter]

wait wait wait, so say you have 5 credit cards all maxed out. Do you get more credit cards to pay those off?

[mrsleeve]

^
No you print more money in your basement........................... errrrrrrr wait



Oh and Dub even after adjusted for inflation the 0 spent more money in those 4 days than Truman and Eisenhower in the entire decade 1950-1960 and we were building the god dammed highway system. What did we get from what the 0 spent ??????

[herbivor]

wait wait wait, so say you have 5 credit cards all maxed out. Do you get more credit cards to pay those off?

If only our economy was as simple as an individual's personal debt, Suzy Ormand could run our country, but unfortunately there is no comparison. Teabaggers tend to think there is.

[gwb72tii]

If only our economy was as simple as an individual's personal debt, Suzy Ormand could run our country, but unfortunately there is no comparison. Teabaggers tend to think there is.

ahhh, revert to name calling
good argument

70+ years of liberalism got us to where we are today, of democrats being in control of congress and spending money we don't have

really is pretty simple

[gwb72tii]

Is that too much? Is it not enough perhaps? What is the ideal amount to be spending in your opinion? Is it maybe that you take issue with how the funds are being used or a combination thereof? The reason I ask is because what Barack is doing here is implementing basic keynesian economic principles. Or do you support a more monetarist economic policy such as that employed by Great Britain during the 80's? FYI, it was a dismal failure for them.

Now for some history: Even as far back as FDR, we can see that his New Deal, which was keynesian in nature, significantly reduced unemployment from 24.9% in 1933 to 14.3% in 1937 and increased the GDP by 34%. The economy then took a second but shallower dip from 1937 to 1941, when all of a sudden, bam, a whole 'nother level of government spending took off with our jump into WWII. After seeing this, most post-war politicians have tended to base their policy off keynesian principles.

Well then, why you ask, is it not working so effectively right now? My response to that is two-fold. For starters, would you care to predict where we'd be right now if Big O had taken a "let's let the economy work itself out" approach? Secondly, we just had 8 years of massive keynesian spending under Bush. Oh that's right, you know I was going there, blaming ole Bushy. But seriously, the spending he did on the Iraq war was serving to bolster the economy we enjoyed during the early 2000's. The downside to keynesian intervention is that its effects are short lived and meant to be used as more of a jumpstart, not life support. So by the time "O" took office much of that proverbial keynesian adrenal gland was run dry. The only thing left to try at that point was to try to squeeze the fucker harder (ratchet up spending even more).

I read the writing on the walls too, but I tend to read between the lines and check the source of those who have been writing on it.

you misunderstand economic history if you thing keynesian stimulus in the 30's worked. it failed. it then it failed in japan. and now its failed in this admin, one more time. its failed wherever its been tried. there is no multiplier. war got us out of the depression
FDR's treasury secretary said it failed