So what's the take on Obamanomics so far?

[DC Tom]

You have to explain that for me, not sure at all what you are talking about.

 

An improvement over Bush's last few months, when TARP was created?

 

I mean, really... I've never called you a moron before, as far as I recall...but now you have a choice to make. Do you want to simply admit you had a momentary brain fart implying TARP was an Obama initiative? Or do you want to try to push an obviously self-contradictory set of statements as though you're congenitally stupid?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Please show me where there was a surplus under Clinton. I'll start you off with the proper site:

 

Debt to the Penny

That is debt, not deficits. There is a huge difference

[3rdnlng]

Yes! I think Bush was right to do what he did once we were in the crisis and I have already given a thumps up to Bush for the auto bailout. But the economy is better now than the last months of the Bush presidency. So shove your 'wow' right up your rear-end.

 

And to the part about "his sucessor," ummmm...no, the capitalist system was falling so fast even Bush saw it had to be saved by the government. Mission accomplished

 

The government had to mess it up in order to save it?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

An improvement over Bush's last few months, when TARP was created?

 

I mean, really... I've never called you a moron before, as far as I recall...but now you have a choice to make. Do you want to simply admit you had a momentary brain fart implying TARP was an Obama initiative? Or do you want to try to push an obviously self-contradictory set of statements as though you're congenitally stupid?

TARP was created BECAUSE the economy was so bad. Hello? Do I need to explain more?

[DC Tom]

That is debt, not deficits. There is a huge difference

 

I always wondered how the debt always increased during Clinton's administration, despite a budget surplus.

[DC Tom]

TARP was created BECAUSE the economy was so bad. Hello? Do I need to explain more?

 

So the economy's improved over the last few months of Bush's administration because Bush addressed the economy?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

So the economy's improved over the last few months of Bush's administration because Bush addressed the economy?

Yes. Kudos to Bush for that massive government intervention

[3rdnlng]

TARP was created BECAUSE the economy was so bad. Hello? Do I need to explain more?

 

Do you know what CRA stands for?

[Rob's House]

Yes! I think Bush was right to do what he did once we were in the crisis and I have already given a thumps up to Bush for the auto bailout. But the economy is better now than the last months of the Bush presidency. So shove your 'wow' right up your rear-end.

Your argument seems to be that because two years after a recession we're slightly better off but still with 9.5% unemployment and threat of a second dip (which only seems to happen when Keynesians get to drive) that this somehow speaks well for Obama?

 

And to the part about "his sucessor," ummmm...no, the capitalist system was falling so fast even Bush saw it had to be saved by the government. Mission accomplished

 

I love the depiction of Bush as the beacon of capitalism. Next you'll be defending Obama by citing the prosperity of the 90s as though there is any connection in policy.

 

And Dave, to anyone with even a basic understanding of economic history, this assertion that the financial meltdown somehow equates to "the capitalist system failing" you sound about as competent as Dennis Miller did doing football analysis.

 

Just keep saying "it was corporate greed". I know it sounds retarded but if you say it enough times people may believe it.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Your argument seems to be that because two years after a recession we're slightly better off but still with 9.5% unemployment and threat of a second dip (which only seems to happen when Keynesians get to drive) that this somehow speaks well for Obama?

 

 

 

I love the depiction of Bush as the beacon of capitalism. Next you'll be defending Obama by citing the prosperity of the 90s as though there is any connection in policy.

 

And Dave, to anyone with even a basic understanding of economic history, this assertion that the financial meltdown somehow equates to "the capitalist system failing" you sound about as competent as Dennis Miller did doing football analysis.

 

Just keep saying "it was corporate greed". I know it sounds retarded but if you say it enough times people may believe it.

Touched a nerve, eh? Ok, why did the financial sector need bailing out then?

[3rdnlng]

Touched a nerve, eh? Ok, why did the financial sector need bailing out then?

Ever hear of the CRA?

[Rob's House]

Touched a nerve, eh? Ok, why did the financial sector need bailing out then?

 

Only the annoyance nerve.

 

As far as the financial sector needing a bailout due to a failure of capitalism, your argument presupposes that purely capitalistic forces were in play, which is far from the truth. I'm not so simple as to pretend to explain it with some meaningless slogan like "corporate greed" nor am I going to simplify it by citing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (1), and I won't lay the entire blame on GSE's (2) that owned roughly 1/3 of ALL subprime mortgages. I won't simply blame Bush and Alan Greenspan (both govt, both encouraged it), "Wall Street", Moody's, dupes who got into mortgages they couldn't afford, or the lenders who helped them do it.

 

I tend to think there is plenty of blame to go around. And with the level of government involvement it's hardly an example of a free market left to it's own devices. So, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but to claim this as conclusive evidence that capitalism failed or doesn't work is simply !@#$ing retarded.

 

 

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-sponsored_enterprise

[whateverdude]

Obanmanomics is nothing more than Unionist ideology.

The main tenet of the ideology is that the entire state is an organism which should have central control and cooperation, that the organs of the state should work toward a common purpose, and that the people are bettered as components of the state, working to better the state and thus the members of the state. This ideology is not inherently capitalistic or socialistic, but in fact conflicts with the extremes of both. It is a theoretical, direct justification of totalitarian societies. It does not prescribe a specific end as some other ideologies are want to do (freedom for democracies, communal equality for communism), but rather prescribes the ideal means to gain whatever ends the society (and thus the state) desire. Unionism favors unity of purpose and cooperation (of course), a majoritarian approach to the goals of the state which frowns on active minority dissent, a strong and centralized government, military preparedness, harsh measures against crime, influence of politics and the state in virtually all aspects of life (a weak form of totalitarianism in theory, usually "normal" totalitarianism in practice), and international alliances and unification.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Only the annoyance nerve.

 

As far as the financial sector needing a bailout due to a failure of capitalism, your argument presupposes that purely capitalistic forces were in play, which is far from the truth. I'm not so simple as to pretend to explain it with some meaningless slogan like "corporate greed" nor am I going to simplify it by citing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (1), and I won't lay the entire blame on GSE's (2) that owned roughly 1/3 of ALL subprime mortgages. I won't simply blame Bush and Alan Greenspan (both govt, both encouraged it), "Wall Street", Moody's, dupes who got into mortgages they couldn't afford, or the lenders who helped them do it.

 

I tend to think there is plenty of blame to go around. And with the level of government involvement it's hardly an example of a free market left to it's own devices. So, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but to claim this as conclusive evidence that capitalism failed or doesn't work is simply !@#$ing retarded.

 

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-sponsored_enterprise

Are you suggesting capitalism can't have failures or have flaws that lead to bad things?

 

And, has there ever been a country with a truly free market? Or, are you just arguing in the world of impossible theories?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Obanmanomics is nothing more than Unionist ideology.

Obama is Stalin without the facial hair.

[GG]

Touched a nerve, eh? Ok, why did the financial sector need bailing out then?

 

Depends on the definition of a bailout. Did it need cash for a few months, or a change in accounting rules and no cash infusions? Would the two have accomplished the same result? I'm sure you can tell me the difference between the two.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Depends on the definition of a bailout. Did it need cash for a few months, or a change in accounting rules and no cash infusions? Would the two have accomplished the same result? I'm sure you can tell me the difference between the two.

Did they need? Yes. Did they get, yes. That's all you need to know. You are so absolutly brainwashed, Mr. Shake Down, that you will believe, invent or lie to yourself about whatever you need to. You cannot be reasoned with.

[Rob's House]

Are you suggesting capitalism can't have failures or have flaws that lead to bad things?

 

And, has there ever been a country with a truly free market? Or, are you just arguing in the world of impossible theories?

 

Really dude? Really?

[Rob's House]

Did they need? Yes. Did they get, yes. That's all you need to know. You are so absolutly brainwashed, Mr. Shake Down, that you will believe, invent or lie to yourself about whatever you need to. You cannot be reasoned with.

 

Is this irony or hypocrisy? Perahps mere projection? Tom, can you provide some clarification on this one?

[Alaska Darin]

That is debt, not deficits. There is a huge difference

I love when you partisan idiots trumpet something you obviously have little understanding of. I'm going to spell this out very simply: THERE WAS NO SURPLUS. EVER. That's probably the biggest governmental lie in the history of the United States.