Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Does anybody still believe this stuff is Obama's fault?  I'm as much a critic of Obama as anybody on here, but people need to stop being intellectually dishonest with this.  There's enough valid criticism of Obama not to have to resort to this kind of stuff. 

 

For example, everybody knows that the price of gas was as low as it was because of the sudden economic meltdown of late 2008.  As recently as July of 2008, the average price of gas was $4.01.  It was the devastation of the meltdown -- all those jobs suddenly lost in the fall of 08, all those commutes that suddenly ended all at the same time -- that decimated the demand for gas and drove the price down below $2.00 on the day Obama took office.  Stop listening to that Michelle Bachmann nonsense. 

 

http://flowingdata.com/2008/08...ls-prices-1993-2008/

 

The present is the creation of the past. One cannot explain the condition, the black condition, without using the past and without going deep into the past. Anyone who tries to explain the present, without using the past, is either being disingenuous ad or stupid. Is Obama to blame for the current economic reality? The answer is no. The economic history of this nation was not created in the 3 years Obama has been president. If that were the case then only he would be to blame, but then only if the Presidency was a dictatorship, without a co-equal branch of government that is equally complicit in the outcome of things as the executive. Furthermore, the role of the Federal Reserve would also have to fall under the control of the Presidency as well and hence all monetary and fiscal control levers would have to be totally controlled by the POTUS in order to lay blame. There is also an independent private enterprise sector whose decisions and management impact the fate of workers and the nation as well.


As true as it is that Obama is not the cause of these economic numbers that manifest today, it is equally true that Bush is not totally responsible for the things that happened under his tenure. Remember, the present is the creation of the past. We as a nation have had a habit of getting the benefit of something before we pay the cost, which in the short run creates the impression or actually of growth and prosperity. If you happen to be the President during times of getting the benefit before paying the cost, then good times will rein under your watch. However, if the price is then paid during the next presidency, it’s really not the fault of that Presidency either.


The Clinton years were an example of getting the benefit of something before paying the cost, as well as other things. The internet boom and the Dot com boom created a lot of artificial wealth during the Clinton years. The Clinton years also gave us NAFTA. In the short run when the Dot Coms and NAFTA got going, it worked to the benefit of the economy. However, by the time Clinton’s 8 years were done, the Dot Com bubble burst and NAFTA was creating that sucking sound that Ross Perot warned Al Gore about. In fact, the monetary policy of the last 30 years and the recent policies of then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan all were actions taken that maximized the present but had the reaction of minimizing the future. That’s what politicians and appointed heads do. They create, under pressure from the electorate, boards or shareholders; create short term policies and acts that please those that control their fate and they do this by minimizing the future to maximize the present.


What we have now is America in decline and to understand why America is in decline one must study the history of our incline. What goes up must come down. Every action creates and equal and opposite reaction. The reason we went up is directly correlated with the reason we are going down. I for one will be glade will people decouple from political partisanship and simply just study history from a monetary policy perspective, as well as a global perspective.

 

Obama stepped into the frying pan. He came into a situation where he was set up to fail.....because the way he got in was promising things he could never deliver. Why was he not smart enough to simply wait 4 or more years, when the fallout would be fully manifested and not blamed on him? Why could not black folks wait 4 or more years instead of throwing him into the ring with Mike Tyson in his prime knowing he would get knocked the f'ck out....then crying about it.

 

Last edited by Noah The African
Originally Posted by nuggyt:

Doesn't matter if it is Obama's fault.  Just like the QB, the president gets too credit and too much blame.  These are his stats and he has to live by them.  He knew what he was walking into when he asked for the job and he said he was going to fix it.


I guess it depends on what the numbers are supposed to be used for. If it's to prove a point, then the numbers tell all the story you need. But if it's to take action -- concerning how to vote, or whom to support, etc., then the numbers are meaningless without context. 

Have I said I wanted Hillary to get the nomination.  OH, only 50 times.

 

But how much of this is not GWBs fault either?  John Kenneth Galbraith was talking about planned obsolescence in 1959.  So now we have this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DCwN28y8o

 

I have a Linux book from 2001 talking about the planned obsolescence of computer software.  So we have had Vista, and Windows 7 and now Windows 8.  So White folks have used technology to screw up the planet and suddenly a Black man is responsible for wrecking the economy.

 

How was he dumb enough to walk into this?  JEEZ!

 

Xum

"Originally Posted by nuggyt:

No error, it is how your mind works. Interesting how you include Bush's VP and not Obama's."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



The very last thing that you could possibly know about me or (anyone else you don't know personally), is how my mind works.  It only takes common sense to know that the world watched Obama take office as all of this was unfolding, beginning with Wall Street/Big Banks/Big Business claiming to be about to go under in order to blackmail our government out of "Bailouts."  After Bush-Cheney and the republicans took this country from a deficit surplus to trillions of dollars in the negative, who else is responsible?  Therefore, it can't possibly Obama's fault, the shape the country is in economically. 

 

You sound like those tea party members who are claiming to actually believe that this downhill slide did not happen until Obama was elected, even though, the facts, the history, and damn near every government record tells anyone that the Bush administration policies and the republicans are responsible for the economic shape that this country is in right now.

Originally Posted by Temporary Vox:

Does anybody still believe this stuff is Obama's fault?  I'm as much a critic of Obama as anybody on here, but people need to stop being intellectually dishonest with this.  There's enough valid criticism of Obama not to have to resort to this kind of stuff. 

 


 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Yep!!  Folks like Nuggyt believe "this stuff"  ... wholeheartedly!!!    And there's MILLIONS more like him! 

 

Also .... "intellectual dishonesty" is the only thing they can use in their attempts to try to form a valid argument!!  It's ridiculous .... and most 'thinking" people know there's no validity to it ..... but, they gotta at least try, right?? 

When people talk about deficits and surpluses lets understand what that should mean. If a government is running a budget deficit, meaning they are spending more than their revenues, what is the impact of that overspending on the economy? Every dollar spent is a dollar of revenue for another entity. Hence, if the government is overspending then some entity in the economy is getting added revenue which theoretically should have a stimulating impact upon the economy. Right? Thus, what would the economy had of looked like if “Bush” the dictator (assuming that the US has no coequal branch of government known as the legislative branch) had not overspent? Let’s remember also that wars have always been profitable for the economy as many private companies, that employ American workers, gets billions of dollars’ worth of contracts from the military. So Bush the dictator cut taxes while starting two wars, which should have (and did) broke the budget, but should have also stimulated the economy.


The fact that those measures did not stimulate the economy was a major warning sign. It’s like pressing all the way down on your cars accelerator pedal but not being able to reach a speed over 35 mph. You know something is seriously wrong with your transmission or engine when that happens. That is when the Fed jumped in when fiscal policy failed, and kept lowering interest rates to stimulating borrowing and creating a housing boom that created artificial growth of the economy and allowed the masking of sever structural problems in the economy.


What Bush the dictator did, Obama the dictator would like to do and is doing, which is essentially overspending to stimulate the economy. However, it’s not working because there is a giant hole in the economy. The more money you put in the hands of Americans the more foreign goods they buy, which go to create jobs and opportunity in foreign countries. Borrowing and printing money to put into the hands of American eventually goes into the pockets of Chinese, Indians and others. Remember how folks used to say that reparations as cash payments to blacks would never work because when we spent that money it would go right back into the hands of whites? Well, that same thing applies to Americans. The more money you put into the hands of Americans, the more foreign goods they buy or debt they pay down or hoard out of fear for the future.  Until that growing hole is dealt with, if it can be, it will take 3 dollars of debt to produce 1 dollars worth of stimulus and the stimulus will only be short term and the debt will be permanent. Some incumbents get reelected by by creating 3 dollars worth of debt for 1 dollars worth of job creation and the jobs only last long enough to win an election or to mask the giant azz hole in the economy so all the bums will not be thrown out.

 

Anybody who is still arguing left vs right in regards to the state of the economy are  intellectually lost! Its funny how you rarely hear Democrats lamenting on who the party and president was when NAFTA got passed and how much of the job losses of today are related to those trade policies or how Obama admin is looking to create a policy like that with other poor nations. Whats that sound........oh...its dem damn crickets again.

Last edited by Noah The African
Originally Posted by nuggyt:

Numbers are never meaningless without context.  How do you think most people vote?? They see a graph or numbers and it makes up their minds for them.  

But we as thinking people -- not as statistics, or as some nameless, mindless "they" -- have the ability to think beyond that.  That's what I'm saying.  "People," whoever they are, vote whatever dumb reason they vote.  But if the OP has any point, it's either to point out numbers that mean nothing to thinking people without context, or it's to sell a certain point of view.  Period.  And by the way I remember Obama said during his acceptance speech that the problems probably wouldn't be solved within "even one term."  Depressions don't turn around, and I think I've mentioned on this board (as well as Noah) that the current economic crisis can't be effectively addressed until the early 2020s.  Sucks for whoever the presidents are gonna be... 

"Let’s remember also that wars have always been profitable for the economy as many private companies, that employ American workers, gets billions of dollars’ worth of contracts from the military. So Bush the dictator cut taxes while starting two wars, which should have (and did) broke the budget, but should have also stimulated the economy.  

The fact that those measures did not stimulate the economy was a major warning sign. . . ."


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That should tell everyone something right there; there should have been millions of jobs created for all the billions in "no-bid" contracts that were handed out by Bush-Cheney and republicans to their friends and donors, but, there were not, because most of that money is probably in off-shore bank accounts or in overseas investments.  And, Bush only cut taxes for the riches and wealthiest Americans, it's not like EVERYBODY's taxes were cut.

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


"What Bush the dictator did, Obama the dictator would like to do and is doing, which is essentially overspending to stimulate the economy. However, it’s not working because there is a giant hole in the economy.    . . ."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Bush and Cheney and republicans and republican campaign big donors, and the financial industry fleeced the United States government out of billions of dollars, a lot of which cannot even be accounted for, and in no way was he overspending to stimulate the economy.

 

I don’t know how true what you say is concerning monies for no bid contracts going to line the pockets of whomever. There is probably some truth to that, but I think its hyperbole the way you presented it. There were tens of thousands of contractors sent to work in Iraq, not just as mercenaries, but for all types of duties. My wife’s Aunties husband, who was retired military, left his job for a year and went to work in Iraq about during the war, to do IT work. Why did he do it?  He was paid almost 200,000 dollars for a year of IT work, when he was only making about 65,000 on the job he left. Those wars put lots of money into the pocket of those willing to take the risk of working in a war zone. All those contractors have employees who got paid lots of money that they spent at home. They would not have had this extra money if the Bush wars did not exist.  If you do research into the number of American contractors in Iraq during and after the war, you will find that it was several hundred thousand…..and they were compensated at rates that far exceed what the going rate for the service is on American soil outside a war zone. However, again, when they spent their money, much of it likely went to purchase foreign goods.


In regards to the fleecing of America by Republicans….I don’t really know what that means. If you are talking about derivatives trading and things of that nature, that was facilitated by both parties and made possible ONLY because of the policies of the Federal Reserve. I don’t support a political party, so I am only concerned with truth and fairness. I just find it amazing that when Bashing the republicans over the state of the economy, that people who support Democrats never seem to mention NAFTA and the President and party that delivered that sucking sound of jobs from the economy.  All they ever talk about is THE SURPLUS.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×