Nice Job Obummer

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Em, not sure you got your facts straight, but you might want to read up a bit on something called "The New Deal".

He has his facts straight. You might want to read up on something called the 'depression of 1920' to which "New Deal' has no relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depress...920%E2%80%9321

[Booth]

Originally Posted by KosherCowboy

and that person is the Commander in Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama.

Kosher I like the tone of your posts in general even when I don't always agree with the content but I do have one question. What's behind the need to remind us of his middle name?

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

He has his facts straight. You might want to read up on something called the 'depression of 1920' to which "New Deal' has no relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depress...920%E2%80%9321

You completely missed the point Billy. Most economists and historians believe it was Harding's policies enacted in reponse to the 1920 depressionn that caused the market crash of 1929. Go back and look at the chart I posted and consider the similarities between that and the policies implemented during the. Bush administration that led us to present day. The 1920s amounted to nothings more than an economic bubble that eventually burst. Similar policies- similar result. I'll post some links later this evening to support ths further.

[sixxbach]

Originally Posted by Booth

What's behind the need to remind us of his middle name?

That's wrong with that? In the real world, I like my full name used.....

sixx

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

I'll post some links later this evening to support ths further.

I'll look forward to reading them since I am not able to come up with anything supporting that.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/...depression.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Causes

[KosherCowboy]

Originally Posted by Booth

Kosher I like the tone of your posts in general even when I don't always agree with the content but I do have one question. What's behind the need to remind us of his middle name?

Because I feel like it, you probably already know why...if not, I'll tell you



Boker Tov by the way

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

I'll look forward to reading them since I am not able to come up with anything supporting that.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/...depression.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Causes

Much of it is right there in your Wikipedia link under "Causes". Read up on debt deflation and i'll post some more details when I get home this evening.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

I'll look forward to reading them since I am not able to come up with anything supporting that.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/...depression.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Causes

Sometimes you just have to a little deeper Billy. Tell me if any of this sounds vaguely familiar to you...

"Harding’s election meant big bucks for big business. The anti-trust gains made by Wilsonian progressives went out the door as a new age dawned for fat-cat tycoons and good old boys in the Republican Party. Ironically, though, many of Harding’s pro-business policies hurt the American economy in the long run. First, the sudden free-for-all in the market led to speculation and corruption. Speculators began using future earnings on the stocks they owned—money they did not even have yet—to buy new stocks, a process known as “buying on margin.” This overspeculation, along with widespread corruption and faulty international finances, eventually led to the stock market crash of 1929."

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/am.../section1.html

"In the 1920's American economic policy was laissez faire. Businesses were left alone and for sometime things appeared to fine. American businesses reported record profits, production was at an all time high. The problem was that while earnings rose and the rich got richer, the working class received a disproportionally lower percentage of the wealth. This uneven distribution of wealth got so bad that 5% of America earned 33% of the income."

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_83_Notes.htm

Here's an interesting time-line that shows some of the major points leading up to the depression through Harding's administration:

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.html

These should keep you busy for a little while anyway.

[Billy_Saul]

There is no doubt that some of the policies and excesses of the 1920's contributed to the great depression of the 1930's. The simple fact is that preceding policies can be said to have contributed to any economic downturn be it recession or depression throughout history.

Originally Posted by mgohara

Everybody needs to look at the 1920 Depression which was worse than the Great Depression. The gov't did the right thing by cutting spending and taxes and letting the markets correct themselves. I am sorry but when you are in debt you can not spend your way out of it. I don't care if you are a democrat or republican.

Our problem is that the idiots in charge all have responsibility in this.

The above statement is in fact true although I am sure there are different interpretations of that period.

Austrian School economists and historians argue that the 1921 recession was a necessary market correction, required to engineer the massive realignments required of private business and industry following the end of the War. Libertarian Austrian School historian Thomas Woods argues that President Harding's laissez-faire economic policies during the 1920-21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery.

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Em, not sure you got your facts straight, but you might want to read up a bit on something called "The New Deal".

To say that the corrective measures which quickly dispatched the incapacitated Woodrow Wilson's 20-21 depression caused the great depression is no different then saying that The dot com bubble of the 1990s ending in 2000, the failure of Clinton to pursue Al Qaeda contributing to 9-11, the housing bubble with its roots firmly planted in the 90s all add up to Clinton being responsible for our current economic malaise.

Lots of things contributed to the great depression the least of which had anything to do with govt. policy set in 1920. For example the margin requirements for brokerage accounts which was regularly extended at 10 to 1 long before 1921 and not regulated at all until 1934.

I still fail to see how the new deal is relevant to the depression of 1920, so I stand by this statement.

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

He has his facts straight. You might want to read up on something called the 'depression of 1920' to which "New Deal' has no relevance.

Thanks for the interesting links. Amazing that the Republicans were able to reverse Wilson's depression in only 6 months. I think we will see a similar result in 2012 after OBama is voted out of office.

Good post mgohara, caused me to look.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

the failure of Clinton to pursue Al Qaeda contributing to 9-11, the housing bubble with its roots firmly planted in the 90s all add up to Clinton being responsible for our current economic malaise.

You seriously believe this don't you? It seems to me that our "current economic malaise" boils down to two things, deficit and unemployment. I would argue these things have little to do with 9/11, Al Qaeda (unless you count the money and time wasted failing to erradicate them), or the housing bubble.

Tell me Billy, in a few short sentences what exactly do you consider our "current economic malaise" to be, and how do you think voting Obama out of office will solve those problems?

[F-Sharp]

Sheesh, talk about duck, dive and dodge! Billy and Kosher make a point to insist that removing Obama from office will solve all our economic woes, but when confronted with direct questions asking what they think those woes are and why will removing Obama fix it I hear nothing but crickets. To me it's like watching those Tea Party rally videos from NLM, or GWB standing up their ranting, "They hate us for our freedom". At least Billy could be bothered to make a case, albeit strawmanishly weak, for trying to back a claim.

Here's some more numbers to consider that might help you form your words.

Unemployment at 9.1% represents about 14.1 million people. Let's assume we wanted to cut that number to Clinton levels, which was 4.2% in 1999. That's over 7 million jobs we need to add to our economy. What plan does the GOP currently have to solve that problem? Further cutting taxes to employers who created this problem in the first place? Ha, good luck with that.

Our deficit is running at $1.4 trillion a year with a total National debt obligation of $14.2 trillion. The GOP numbers we've heard is they want to slash $4 trillion from our deficit over the next ten years without raising taxes. Hmmmm, basic math time once again:

$4 tril / 10 = $400 billion

Anyone else see a problem with that value? The problem is it's still $800 BILLION + interest a year short! In just ten short years the party of NO and utter incompetence will have added another $8 trillion to our deficit for a whopping $22.2 trillion dollars and ultimately the only thing that will have been accomplished is the strangling of the poor, the middle class, veterans, the unemployed, and the elderly without ever lowering our National Debt by one single red cent. You want to know what the interest alone on $22.2 trillion will be? I don't want to scare you...

Come on guys! So now that you have some data to work with you must be able to formulate some valid reason to believe the things that you do. Make your cases! I'm trying hard to understand your real problem with this Black, Socialist, illegal alien, Muslim man we have in office.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by KosherCowboy

but Bush has been gone, it is Obama's job and deal now and the problem is not being fixed. We are worse off as a nation, the outlook not great.

instead of hearing Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush from the liberals when will we hear ' This is the problem, this is how we are going to fix it' and leave Bush out.

One reason you hear bush, bush, bush, etc. is because there is blame associated with the subject issue. If you want to hear “Here is the problem. How do we fix it?” you don’t start with “President Obama sure fucked up the economy. The US as we knew it will never be the same.” You say “The economy sure is fucked up. How do we fix it?” And oh yeah, the other party is supposed to help. And of course there is the elephant in the room that maybe republican policies helped put us where we're at and maybe we should try something different?

Naw! Everything was perfect right up until Obama took office.

I swear I won't cum in your mouth!


The main reason you hear “bush, bush, bush” is obvious. Usually the best measure of presidential performance is historical. President Bush was the president before the current one. You don’t check Harry Truman’s statistics unless they are relevant. The closer in time frame to the compared presidency the better. It’s more apples-to-apples.

Anyone who posts comments about the current president’s job performance should expect comparisons to the previous president. Bush’s name is by far more often in response than initial subject (when Obama and Bush are mentioned in same subject. On a board like this the percentage could easily be in the 90% range. A perfect example is the number of rounds of golf the president has played. Expect to hear about the 1000ish days at Crawford/Camp David. If a person makes an incorrect statement about any subject, should he be angry he was corrected? Shouldn’t he take note of the correction and not do it again? Unfortunately the name Bush is found in many of the corrections.
And sorry, it’s hardly as simple as turning the keys over. If compared to a vehicle this would be an aircraft carrier, the most complicated of ships considering all the different logistics involved. The analogy breaks down when you consider a ship’s Captain is the sole decider. There is no congress.

Obama is driving the bus we are all passengers on, Bush had the keys taken away years ago and he no longer has them, he isn't on the bus, he is retired in TX halfway across the country. I'm not defending Bush, just saying he is gone. 2+ years. You're not defending Bush? I'll let that go for the moment. But you blame Obama for things beyond his control....without knowing the details of course. And as soon as you hear "bush" you stop listening. Too bad that is when the details are explained.
He may be gone but his legacy will be around for a long time.

Fish and/or F Sharp may be correct, incorrect or partially correct and I am not up to date on all the fine details but I do know one thing, America is hurting, the outlook for the future of the children and grandchildren is not great and only one person sits in the Oval Office now and has for 3+ years. It's 2+ years. Math challenged too?

So you're not sure who is right or wrong in the facts being presented but you are positive it is President Obama's fault. You don't feel any personal responsibility to know the facts before you render judgment and place blame for our country’s demise on the sitting president. Since the details are the facts, what do you base you choice on....Wait, I don't care. If you don't use the facts, who cares what you used.
When you say "This is the problem, how do we fix it?" you mean "This problem is my fault. Despite the fact it has been in the making for years, that global impact type problems take a united country to solve, or may be the direct result of an action of a previous office holder, I want to go on record as having claimed the blame. Having done that, now I'm sure the house will give America and I their best efforts." Right?

No fucking way.
and that person is the Commander in Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama.

You have totally confused the terms "responsibility for (as in "The buck stops here.")" and "the cause of (as in the reason why we are up shit creek without a paddle)". Blame is negative and needs to be handed out correctly. The issues that caused any given problem must also be identified to make sure the problem is fixed.