DC Tom Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 And you are a sociopathic idiot. Go take your pills creep But after I take my pills, I'll be better, and you'll still be an idiot.
keepthefaith Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Because Presidents are always--fairly or unfairly--judged by the economy they administrate over. There is truth in that statement. It's more likely that the economy has recovered very slowly in spite of Obama's policies. Nobody's going to accuse him of being a pro-growth private sector guy and that's what we need. We need leadership that will inspire confidence among both consumers and business people. We need policies that will incent businesses to stay in the U.S. and invest here. More employment fixes a lot of problems. The Democrat party can't support these ideas as they've made a career out of bashing corporations, profits and the greedy rich.
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 But after I take my pills, I'll be better, and you'll still be an idiot. Done before.
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 But after I take my pills, I'll be better, and you'll still be an idiot. After you take your pills everything will be better. You will be superman...
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 That's funny. Your argument for failure is the world global economy did not recover fast enough with Obama's policies? Can't you be a little more precise? I mean how fast, in YOUR OPINION, should the economy of recovered? I just think you don't know enough about economics to really have anything except a politically derived opinion. Yeah you got me there. What does a Chef know about economics and the history of recoveries?
keepthefaith Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 That's funny. Your argument for failure is the world global economy did not recover fast enough with Obama's policies? Can't you be a little more precise? I mean how fast, in YOUR OPINION, should the economy of recovered? I just think you don't know enough about economics to really have anything except a politically derived opinion. We would have settled for an average recovery. By most measurements, this economic recovery has been the weakest in modern history.
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 There is truth in that statement. It's more likely that the economy has recovered very slowly in spite of Obama's policies. Nobody's going to accuse him of being a pro-growth private sector guy and that's what we need. We need leadership that will inspire confidence among both consumers and business people. We need policies that will incent businesses to stay in the U.S. and invest here. More employment fixes a lot of problems. The Democrat party can't support these ideas as they've made a career out of bashing corporations, profits and the greedy rich. Thanks for a thoughtful reply. After Chef and DC Two Year Old it's refreshing. But I still disagree to a point. You are right but only so far. The Democrats are run by corporate people, are they not? How many Democrats in Congress are millionaire? The Democrtas raise millions and millions from rich people who generously support the party. Still, you are right that they are perceived by many as being the party of the poor. Hard to measure the impact on the economy. I mean Apple was trading at $30 a share when Hillary and Obama were fighting for the nomination in 2008 and now it's almost $100 and that's after a 7 to 1 split! A lot has gone right in this supposed anti-corporate environment. The Dow over 17,000 for instance We would have settled for an average recovery. By most measurements, this economic recovery has been the weakest in modern history. Nothing Obama could have really done about that. Europe was flat on it's back after the recession and that made them kind of hard to trade with. Remember, this was a global meltdown Yeah you got me there. What does a Chef know about economics and the history of recoveries? Not much if you ask me
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Obvious? I'll tell you how it's obvious. Those are all policies done years ago and the economy is still very slow to recover. And if you give me "well it's because we were in such a deep hole (read: I blame Bush) it takes a long time to recover" **** I'll kick you in the nuts. That is if you had any. And to your last statement? Oh never mind. I see Tom already said it. Why would you try and kick me in the nuts if I brought up Bush? Was it Bush's fault the economy crashed? Or are Republican president immune from criticism on the economy, especially when the bottom falls out on their watch. Or is it just Obama's fault we havent recovered fast enough from Bush's economic collapse.
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Why would you try and kick me in the nuts if I brought up Bush? Was it Bush's fault the economy crashed? Or are Republican president immune from criticism on the economy, especially when the bottom falls out on their watch. Or is it just Obama's fault we havent recovered fast enough from Bush's economic collapse. Yes it's Bush's fault the economy crashed and it's not Obama's fault the recovery has been historically slow. Is that about right?
3rdnlng Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 How much culpability does Bush have for the CRA and the packaging/selling of shaky loans?
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Yes it's Bush's fault the economy crashed and it's not Obama's fault the recovery has been historically slow. Is that about right? Historically slow compared to what? What recover do you have in mind that this one was comparable to? "Historically slow" sounds like a really asinine term. As if all economic set backs are equal.
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Historically slow compared to what? I'm guessing, maybe...history?
Chef Jim Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Historically slow compared to what? What recover do you have in mind that this one was comparable to? "Historically slow" sounds like a really asinine term. As if all economic set backs are equal. So this is news to you?
MattM Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/23/barack-obama/obama-us-has-recovered-recession-better-almost-eve/
3rdnlng Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 http://www.politifac...ter-almost-eve/ Your linked article is a crock of schit. Do you really believe that unemployment in the U.S. has improved dramatically? This administration is an expert on smoke and mirrors.
B-Man Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 “Today's report on the housing market is raising concerns about the economic recovery. Sales of new homes dropped sharply last month, more than 8%, and that's the largest decline in nearly a year.” According to an article published Thursday afternoon on USA Today’s website, the numbers in June combine with “newly updated figures for March, April and May” that “show the industry’s spring performance was weaker than previously estimated.” The article further reported that: June sales hit a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 406,000, the second-weakest pace of the year, Census said. May's level was cut to 442,000 from the 504,000 annual pace Census reported a month ago. Instead of rising nearly 19% from April, May's sales were only up about 8%. The magnitude of the change was a single-month record for new-home sales data, according to Census records on revisions that date to 1996. Economists were bracing for lower June sales, but they anticipated an annual sales rate of 480,000, based on the median forecast in Action Economics' survey. Sales fell from May in every region, led by a 20% decline in the Northeast. The falloffs elsewhere were 1.9% in the West, 8.2% in the Midwest and 9.5% in the South. .
Doc Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 How much culpability does Bush have for the CRA and the packaging/selling of shaky loans? As much as he has for 9/11. Which is to say, nothing compared to his predecessor.
Tiberius Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 So this is news to you? Great non-answer. Again, what recovery are we suppose to compare this one to? You said it now back it up or admit you have absolutely no idea at all what you are talking about
Recommended Posts