Obama is simply clueless about the economy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Many economists believe the Stimulus package saved the economy from sliding into a depression. If that had happened corporate profits would not have recovered like they have.

As part of this Obama has kept taxes on the middle class down to encourage demand.


You're missing the point. The dramatic increase in corporate profits is matched by the widening wealth gap. As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.

What we've witnessed is that this isn't sustainable and has resulted in increased debt and financial instability.

As a lover of facts I'd think you would have appreciated those. I put them in BOLD so you'd notice.


Okkkkay

-spence

"]Many economists believe the Stimulus package saved the economy from sliding into a depression"

And just as many economists say it was a waste. We cannot know what would have happened if things were different, which is why Obama likes to take this approach. Here's what we know for a fact. The stimulus was $750 billion that, according to Obama, would keep unemployment below 8%. He was spectacularly wrong on that. Off by millions of jobs.

"As part of this Obama has kept taxes on the middle class down to encourage demand. "

He KEPT them low. Do you know why they were low in the first place? They are low in the first place because of Bush, and I bet you never gave Bush credit for that. If Obama didn't add trillions to the debt, he could have lowered taxes on the middle class by much more.

"As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and this comment highlights your total ignorance on this issue. WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT'S NOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Bill Gates earns another million today, and he will, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. I keep posting that, it's irrefutably true, but you keep your fingers in your stupid ears because it makes Obama look like the liar he is. God, you're ignorant. And I don't mean run-of-the-mill ignorant. I mean once-in-a-generation ignorant.

Spence, when cavemen were around, GDP was zero. Now it's a lot more than zero. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealthy people are not hurting the rest of us, in fact, they are a godsend. They pay tons of taxes, they give tons to charity, and they create lots of jobs. Those facts may not serve your dishonest, stupid, hateful, warped, insipid, kool aid-drinking, hippie, moronic, Maoist, Bolshevik, misinformed, blame-everyone-else, gimme-gimme-gimme, juvenile, commie, lazy, pathetic, jealous, Occupy Wall Street, unrealistic, lefty narrative. But they are still the facts. Get the hell out of the way so the adults can talk, please!

In every economic system, there are unfortunately folks who fall through the cracks. There are bad wealthy people, just like there are bad poor people and bad middle class people. But the fact that some are wealthy is NOT THE REASON that others are poor. That would only be true, it COULD ONLY BE TRUE, if wealth were finite. It is not.

The class warfare argument has no validity whatsoever. It is a desperate ploy by a desperate, inept Obama who himself admitted that, despite the fact that his party controlled the entore government from 2008-2010, that the country is worse off now than the day he took office. Obama himself admitted this. Yet he takes zero responsibility for it, even though the Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006-2010. It's all someone else's fault. If only we could increase tax rates on billionaires by 5 cents a year, we'd all be driving Bentleys, according to Obama. If those mean conservatives would only allow it to happen!

If it is obtained honestly, wealth is good. And more is better than less.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And just as many economists say it was a waste. We cannot know what would have happened if things were different, which is why Obama likes to take this approach. Here's what we know for a fact. The stimulus was $750 billion that, according to Obama, would keep unemployment below 8%. He was spectacularly wrong on that. Off by millions of jobs.

Your assertion that "just as many" is made up.

As for the 8%, I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made. The CBO figures back that up as well.

He KEPT them low. Do you know why they were low in the first place? They are low in the first place because of Bush, and I bet you never gave Bush credit for that. If Obama didn't add trillions to the debt, he could have lowered taxes on the middle class by much more.

Not totally true. The tax cuts in the Stimulus Bill were weighted towards the middle which was in addition to the existing tax structure.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and this comment highlights your total ignorance on this issue. WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT'S NOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Bill Gates earns another million today, and he will, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. I keep posting that, it's irrefutably true, but you keep your fingers in your stupid ears because it makes Obama look like the liar he is. God, you're ignorant. And I don't mean run-of-the-mill ignorant. I mean once-in-a-generation ignorant.

Spence, when cavemen were around, GDP was zero. Now it's a lot more than zero. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealthy people are not hurting the rest of us, in fact, they are a godsend. They pay tons of taxes, they give tons to charity, and they create lots of jobs. Those facts may not serve your dishonest, stupid, hateful, warped, insipid, kool aid-drinking, hippie, moronic, Maoist, Bolshevik, misinformed, blame-everyone-else, gimme-gimme-gimme, juvenile, commie, lazy, pathetic, jealous, Occupy Wall Street, unrealistic, lefty narrative. But they are still the facts. Get the hell out of the way so the adults can talk, please!

In every economic system, there are unfortunately folks who fall through the cracks. There are bad wealthy people, just like there are bad poor people and bad middle class people. But the fact that some are wealthy is NOT THE REASON that others are poor. That would only be true, it COULD ONLY BE TRUE, if wealth were finite. It is not.

The class warfare argument has no validity whatsoever. It is a desperate ploy by a desperate, inept Obama who himself admitted that, despite the fact that his party controlled the entore government from 2008-2010, that the country is worse off now than the day he took office. Obama himself admitted this. Yet he takes zero responsibility for it, even though the Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006-2010. It's all someone else's fault. If only we could increase tax rates on billionaires by 5 cents a year, we'd all be driving Bentleys, according to Obama. If those mean conservatives would only allow it to happen!

If it is obtained honestly, wealth is good. And more is better than less.

This is a funny little rant, and seriously, I do appreciate the effort you invested in writing it.

But you completely misread my statement.

Read it again.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your assertion that "just as many" is made up.

As for the 8%, I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made. The CBO figures back that up as well.


Not totally true. The tax cuts in the Stimulus Bill were weighted towards the middle which was in addition to the existing tax structure.


This is a funny little rant, and seriously, I do appreciate the effort you invested in writing it.

But you completely misread my statement.

Read it again.

-spence

"I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made"

Spence, he said the stimulus would keep unemploymentunder 8%, and he was spectacularly wrong. You say he was only wrong because the recession waas worse than he thought? Like Obama, I see you choose to support your inane claims with positions that cannot be confirmed. But even if what you say is true, it shows that Obama had no clue how bad things were at the time. So why should I trust that he knows how dire our debt situation is now?

This is the guy, Obama, who also railed against the surge in Iraq, and refused to admit it was working.

Clueless. You inadvertently supported my original premise that he's clueless about the economy. If he had no appreciation for how bad things were, he doesn't have the tools for this job.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, he said the stimulus would keep unemploymentunder 8%, and he was spectacularly wrong. You say he was only wrong because the recession waas worse than he thought? Like Obama, I see you choose to support your inane claims with positions that cannot be confirmed. But even if what you say is true, it shows that Obama had no clue how bad things were at the time. So why should I trust that he knows how dire our debt situation is now?

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?

This is the guy, Obama, who also railed against the surge in Iraq, and refused to admit it was working.

Again, you don't have your facts in order.

Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".

Clueless. You inadvertently supported my original premise that he's clueless about the economy. If he had no appreciation for how bad things were, he doesn't have the tools for this job.

Good news...My analysis is that you're not lying. I think you're just misinformed.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?


Again, you don't have your facts in order.

Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".



Good news...My analysis is that you're not lying. I think you're just misinformed.

-spence

"Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".


He said that after bashing the surge forever. Obama only admitted the surge was a success when he knew that there was no way he could claim otherwise. He criticized the surge for YEARS. But why would you let that fact get in your way?

HJere's what he said in 2007..."We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...rge_won_t_work

Spence, the surge may have exceeded Obama's expectations, but it didn't exceed Bush's or McCain's expectations...the surge did EXACTLY what knowledgable fiolks said it would do.

I agree with you, Obama's expectations were way off. That's the problem. When you spend your entire career playing the race card and voting "present", you don't develop good instincts for these things, I guess. Obama was wrong about what the impact of the surge would be, and he was wrong about what the impact of the stimulus would be. Those are 2 serious issues (macroeconomics and military strategy) to be clueless about, if you want to be president.

You are correct, I can't see that Obama said unemployment would stay below 8%, but hus econoimic advisors sure said it.

"a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ma-promised-s/

Is it fair to hold Obama accountable for the actions of the economic advisors he appoints? I see no reason why not.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He said that after bashing the surge forever. Spence, the surge may have exceeded Obama's expectations, but it didn't exceed Bush's or McCain's expectations...the surge did EXACTLY what knowledgable fiolks said it would do.

Good to admit you're wrong. Obama did oppose the surge for sure, but it's not that he wasn't knowledgeable. I think his position that additional troops alone wouldn't be enough to stop the violence and that it would take pressure off of Iraqi's is quite reasonable. There were a variety of proposals on the table for how to improve conditions in Iraq.

As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage...

I agree with you, Obama's expectations were way off. That's the problem. When you spend your entire career playing the race card and voting "present", you don't develop good instincts for these things, I guess.

Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate.

You are correct, I can't see that Obama said unemployment would stay below 8%, but hus econoimic advisors sure said it.

If you read what I stated above you'd see that that's not true. I believe if you factor in the real economic drop the projection is still within the margin of error.

And more importantly, why aren't you calling me "Pyle"?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Good to admit you're wrong. Obama did oppose the surge for sure, but it's not that he wasn't knowledgeable. I think his position that additional troops alone wouldn't be enough to stop the violence and that it would take pressure off of Iraqi's is quite reasonable. There were a variety of proposals on the table for how to improve conditions in Iraq.

As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage...


Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate.


If you read what I stated above you'd see that that's not true. I believe if you factor in the real economic drop the projection is still within the margin of error.

And more importantly, why aren't you calling me "Pyle"?

-spence

"As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage..."

Spence, unlike Obama,and I suppose unlike you, I was there before and after the surge. Everyone knows that the reduction in violence was a direct result of the increased troop presence in the forward areas. You suggest the reduction in sectarian fighting COINCIDENTALLY matched up with the increased troop presence?

Clueless. I mean, clueless.

"Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate. "

Oh, see. So when Obama is as wrong as can be on the economy or on th esurge, it's because these things are, unfortunately, not an exact science. Did you say the same thing about Bush and the start of the Iraq war? That was also a result of incorrect interpretation of data, but you don't seem to be willing to give Bush the same get-out-of-jail-free card that you give Obama.

Bush supported the surge, because vcirtually every single military commander said it would work. Obama, somehow, concluded that he knew better. If Obama thinnks he knows more about these things than the guys with blood on their boots, what does that say about Obama?

The same thing it says about you. You and Obama are both so blinded by ideology that you cannot see facts before your eyes. Obama thinks the best way to address our debt ($60 trillion) is to tweak tax rates on a handful of zillionaires. You agree. Neither of you are swayed by the fact that the math clearly shows that any addiitonal revenue won't even be enough to pay the INTEREST on what we owe. But that strategy is out of the commie playbook, and that's all that matters to you and Obama.

So when conservatives admit the truth, you (and Obama) know you can't respond based on the issues. All you can do is shriek "YUO HATE POOR PEOPLE! VOTE FOR ME, OR THE MEAN REPUBLICAN WILL KICK YOU OUT IN THE STREET!!"

That's literally all you have.

I keep asking you how you'd generate $60 trillion by adding $90 billion of tax revenue, and you keep d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?


Again, you don't have your facts in order.

-spence

The well known "conservative" Barney Frank says it too:

"Frank: Obama admin 'dumb' to predict no higher than 8% unemployment
By Michael O'Brien - 08/18/10 06:45 AM ET

It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed, a top House Democrat said Tuesday."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...8-unemployment



http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

if you look at the dems report, at pag.5 you'll see the chart of unemployment with and without the "stimulus".
With the stimulus it STAYS right UNDER 8%.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

The well known "conservative" Barney Frank says it too:

"Frank: Obama admin 'dumb' to predict no higher than 8% unemployment
By Michael O'Brien - 08/18/10 06:45 AM ET

It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed, a top House Democrat said Tuesday."
Blogs - TheHill.com

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

if you look at the dems report, at pag.5 you'll see the chart of unemployment with and without the "stimulus".
With the stimulus it STAYS right UNDER 8%.

If you read your article you'd see that Frank was stating that to discuss the number at all was bad politically, not that he disagreed with the projection.

And he used the word "predict" not "promise".

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you read your article you'd see that Frank was stating that to discuss the number at all was bad politically so now you are admitting that he DID discuss the number?
, not that he disagreed with the projection.

And he used the word "predict" not "promise".

-spence

Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Spence, he said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%, and he was spectacularly wrong.

Originally Posted by spence
Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.
First off, Obama never even said it.

"The administration famously released a chart during the fight over its signature $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) showing that, if that package were enacted, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent."

promise, predict, project....whatever "p" word you want to use to describe it or how it was delivered to the public or by which member(s) of "OBAMA'S" Administration...it was "wrong"....and dumb...here's a good one for you...prevaricate
did they "predict" that the way we'd get back to 8% unemployment is that millions of American's would simply give up looking for work