patrick.net

Yep, I've got to agree!

1) First, Obama relaxed financial regulations - that's what got us into the whole mess!
2) Then he started throwing bailouts left and right the second the sh** hit the fan. He's also VASTLY expanded military expenditures - under Obama, the US now spends more on the military than most of the rest of the world!
3) He hasn't found a way to pay for all the tax breaks he's given out to rich people - let alone the military. Hence the deficit.
4) See above.
5) Obviously no one wants to work when Obama will just borrow money (more debt!) to give you stuff for free.
6) see 5
7) Obama is responsible for the housing bubble and crash - so this is clearly his fault, too.
8) Obama is black, black people are tax dodgers. We're just following his lead.
9) see # 5.

I think it's time for a revolution - let's take back our country from the nazi communists who took it from us!

Wait, wait, I retract # 1 - it was excessive regulation of financial markets that caused this. Deregulate if you love freedom!

He does deserve a lot of blame for continuing Bush policies and for continuing permanent bailouts and the moral hazard which engulfs our nation today.

FortWayne says

and for continuing permanent bailouts and the moral hazard which engulfs our nation today

Withdraw the "moral hazard" and you'll get something resembling 1932.

You want to go there, I don't.

Honest Abe says

Yep, he's got my vote in 2012 !!

Good for you. I'm glad that you recognize that each and every one of these issues began long before President Obama took office and his efforts to get us out of this mess.

He'll appreciate your vote.

Honest Abe says

This just in from the Wall Street Journal (Sept 8, 2011)

How long has Rupert Merdoch owned the WSJ now? These days quoting from them is pretty much the same as quoting FOX "news". Is anyone other than neo-con teabaggers still paying attention to the WSJ?

Apparently you colostmybagger, liberal demoncrats give no credence to: Standard & Poor's, Office of Management and Budget, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Office of Paper, Morgan Stanley, Joint Committee on Taxation nor the US Census.

None of you have the ability to think for yourself...the government will do that for you. Its too bad you progressives can't determine right from wrong...like for example - How can more debt and more spending solve a debt and spending problem? Anyone?

Honest Abe says

Apparently you colostmybagger, liberal demoncrats give no credence to: Standard & Poor's, Office of Management and Budget, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Office of Paper, Morgan Stanley, Joint Committee on Taxation nor the US Census.

No I have no problem with looking at info from those sources.

My problem is that with the Propaganda Ministry, brought to us by Rupert, information is sooooo unreliable and often totally incorrect that I can never take anything at face value. I feel the need to go back to the source data and verify if it was true and taken in context. Way too much work to do each time someone regurgitates some of the sewage they gobbled up from newscorp.

So, you might say that I think for myself too much. I don't let known sources of misinformation do my thinking for me.

Honest Abe says

colostmybagger, liberal demoncrats

Chill, please. Insults are fun, but solve nothing. Just the opposite.

Sure, Abe, just explain to us how Obama set those records.

Honest Abe says

How can more debt and more spending solve a debt and spending problem? Anyone?

What do you want? Another tax break? Go eat your half a cookie.

How can more debt and more spending solve a debt and spending problem? Anyone?

It can't. We need to cut gov't spending and/or raise gov't revenues. We need to close the $50B/month trade deficit and we need to develop alternative energy to reduce our reliance on imports and hydrocarbon fuels in general.

We need to reform our domestic health care sector from top to bottom too since we are paying twice the global average for half the care. If we cut that from $8000 to $4000 we could close the deficit entirely with the savings.

Housing is cheap now so that problem has temporarily solved itself but it will get out of hand again soon enough. It'd be nice if we could fix that sector, too.

But these serious problems aren't on the agenda so we're stuck arguing about silly things.

KILLERJANE says

Honest Abe says

How can more debt and more spending solve a debt and spending problem? Anyone?

What do you want? Another tax break? Go eat your half a cookie.

Thinking saying and doing need to line up.

You can't spend your way into prosperity. Government regulation and redirection of capital from productive models to non-productive venues has created a huge asset bubble and current recession. This will go away if government will stop messing with it.

And until we honestly fix this issue and get government off our backs you won't see much recovery there. Best thing Congress can do is find ways to stop their frivolous spending to politically favored.

FortWayne says

Best thing Congress can do is find ways to stop their frivolous spending to politically favored.

LOL. Yes, the $6T gov't spends all goes to 'special interests'.

LOL.

We can and should cut it, but don't kid yourself that things are going to get better. The core problem isn't government, the core problem is that the wealthy have all the money now. The rich are sitting on trillions of capital, and the problem isn't their tax burden, which is really non-existant.

That's the state that conservatives are most happy with. Having money kinda makes one more conservative, actually.

Your silly ideological theories were tested with the Bush tax cuts. UTTER FAIL.

Dear Dr. Nomo:

Long time listener, first time caller. I'm just wondering if you know of any remedies for knuckle-dragging? Honestly, I need help.

-anon

Actually I think Obamama is doing a patriotic task, but only by accident. He's loading up on spending which will hasten the collapse of the leviathan State.

Nothing will get better by keeping the status quo. And obviously, the current model whereby non-productive people can vote themselves the treasury can never work. Its collapsing under its own weight.

Honest Abe says

obviously, the current model whereby non-productive people can vote themselves the treasury can never work.

You mean the finance people and retirees course.

"obviously, the current model whereby non-productive people can vote themselves the treasury can never work."

LOL. The top 5% is taking 33% of the national income.

☺ gets 💵
☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻ share 💵💵

Talk about non-productive people taking the money!

Nomo, I would expect a ridiculous, non-response like that from you. Capitalism works (capitalism - not crony capitalism) but only if you want freedom and prosperity.

In case you haven't noticed the liberal establishment is crumbling under the weight of a $100 Trillion funded and unfunded debt load. That would lead to involuntary servitude for future generations...wouldn't it?

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/09/devil-at-my-doorstep-obama-buys-votes.html - obama buying votes with our tax dollars, who would have thought.

Yes, we should hire the lowest paid workers to get "most work done as possible for the least cost."

We can hire the three $13 an hour workers, and when they mess up, call in the $39 an hour worker to fix the mess. So instead of paying $39 an hour in labor costs, your now paying $78 an hour.

Bellingham Bob says

But these serious problems aren't on the agenda so we're stuck arguing about silly things.

Right, this is the biggest problem. As someone once told me, if you told a business person that they needed to cut 10% of their costs, but that they couldn't cut the 3 top costs, they would laugh at you. Making this about ideology is stupid.

We do need to invest in more things that have returns -- Bob pointed to things related to education and innovation. Infrastructure is another good one.

The problem with cutting spending is that you have to do it right. Cutting spending means cutting GDP. In some cases, the ratio is 1:1, but in other cases it is less than 1:1 or more than 1:1. The question is, how do you cut the deadweight without cutting the stuff that is beneficial to our economy? The current attitude seems to be to cut indiscriminately, which will ultimately hurt our economy more than it will help it.