Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 129

Thread: Are we using Obama as a scapegoat?

  1. #1

    Default Are we using Obama as a scapegoat?

    I was recently reading the NY Times and I have just realized that we've bounced back from a recession faster than ever before. It was projected that the unemployment rate was going to be 25% prior to Obama bailing us out. And in all honesty, we can't criticize the plan all that much because they had to act fast. Prove me wrong, but such a large investment should require companies to provide the government with transparencies and in this case, no such demands were made because they didn't have time for that kind of crap.

    Anyways, we had to use a fiscal policy and run up the deficit in order to salvage whatever was left of the economy. And I was wondering, are we going to blame Obama for running up the deficit? Are we not going to credit him with saving the economy? I know what those lying rightist are going to do at the next election...

  2. #2
    The Right Wing is definitely going to blame everything on Obama and the Democrats. They're going to blame everthing bad that has happened on them, they're going to call anything good that has happened bad then blame that on them, they are going to make up bad things and blame those on Obama and Democrats too. One thing our current breed of conservatives don't like is taking responsibility and being held accountable for anything. That doesn't win elections and today, that's all they care about. Seemingly the country could be collapsing around our ears and they'd only be concerned with how good their chances have improved in November.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  3. #3
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    I have just realized that we've bounced back from a recession faster than ever before.


    You mean this multi-year "Great Recession" that we're still probably not quite through with? Yeah, that's not actually a fast recovery. But I can see that you and Chacha have some kind of liberal circle jerk going on here, so I'll get out of the way and let you get back to it.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  4. #4
    25%? Where are you getting this from? Every forecast I've seen said something like 10-12%. Hell, Obama's own estimates put the number of jobs saved at something like 2 million, which is equivalent to an employment rate of about 1.5%.

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    The Right Wing is definitely going to blame everything on Obama and the Democrats. They're going to blame everthing bad that has happened on them, they're going to call anything good that has happened bad then blame that on them, they are going to make up bad things and blame those on Obama and Democrats too. One thing our current breed of conservatives don't like is taking responsibility and being held accountable for anything. That doesn't win elections and today, that's all they care about. Seemingly the country could be collapsing around our ears and they'd only be concerned with how good their chances have improved in November.
    In contrast to left wingers who are busy deifying Obama for rescuing us out of a recession, despite the bailout having a minimal short-term effect, and a likely incredibly negative long-term effect.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #5
    Last time I checked, the conservatives wanted the economy to run its course, which meant a decade or so of global Dark Age; tariffs, quotas, and embargoes would naturally be the next step as we tend to isolate ourselves during times of trouble. While I do agree with certain conservative ideas, government regulation is a must when it comes to the economy. It's idiotic to allow such a large number of KKK members, burritos, and thugs be unemployed.

    Anyhow, if I asked a liberal what he wants America to be like, he'll reply with "France"; if I asked a conservative, I'd get no answer. I mean do you want to be like fucking Somalia and other countries i can't name off the top of my head?

    In contrast to left wingers who are busy deifying Obama for rescuing us out of a recession, despite the bailout having a minimal short-term effect, and a likely incredibly negative long-term effect.
    How were the ramifications of the bailout "minimal", unless "minimal" is extremely subjective in this case. And please humor me, tell me what the short AND long term effects of Bush being president for two terms were.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    Last time I checked, the conservatives wanted the economy to run its course, which meant a decade or so of global Dark Age; tariffs, quotas, and embargoes would naturally be the next step as we tend to isolate ourselves during times of trouble.
    What are you basing this on? Especially considering the fact that it's generally the left (including Obama) that's the greatest supporter of trade restrictions.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What are you basing this on? Especially considering the fact that it's generally the left (including Obama) that's the greatest supporter of trade restrictions.
    Great depression. They wanted the American companies to flourish at the expense of others. Global meltdown began as they tariffed and embargoed nations, who in turn did the same.

  8. #8
    Are we talking about 1931 or 2010?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    1931
    - Stock Market crash
    - Over speculation in the demand for consumer goods
    - The Big Jew ( JP Morgan) pumping money into the Stock Market JUST to make a profit before it crashed
    - Disappearance of 31 BILLION dollars in one day
    - The New Deal was somewhat effective.
    - WWII ultimately pulls us out of the recession.

    Correct any mistakes.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    I was recently reading the NY Times and I have just realized that we've bounced back from a recession faster than ever before. It was projected that the unemployment rate was going to be 25% prior to Obama bailing us out. And in all honesty, we can't criticize the plan all that much because they had to act fast. Prove me wrong, but such a large investment should require companies to provide the government with transparencies and in this case, no such demands were made because they didn't have time for that kind of crap.

    Anyways, we had to use a fiscal policy and run up the deficit in order to salvage whatever was left of the economy. And I was wondering, are we going to blame Obama for running up the deficit? Are we not going to credit him with saving the economy? I know what those lying rightist are going to do at the next election...
    WTF? Actually, projections without stimulus were for a 12% unemployment rate. The stimulus was promised to keep unemployment at 8-9%. But it stayed at 10.5%. Basically, the impact has been minor and negligible besides letting states keep their overstuffed employee payrolls active for another year.

    We can criticize the plan because most of it hasn't been spent, it's been a bailout for fiscally mismanaged states and massively increased the deficits.

    Sure, folks may disagree...but disappointed that Choobs is failing to recognize the boneheadedness of this post.

  11. #11
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    Correct any mistakes.
    The New Deal didn't actually do shit, and you forgot about the stock market being a rigged game, which is why it collapsed so spectacularly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Sure, folks may disagree...but disappointed that Choobs is failing to recognize the boneheadedness of this post.
    Really? He's always been one of the board's liberal/Democratic party partisans. Next you're gonna say that you're disappointed that ][ear's not actually the person he claims to be.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    The New Deal didn't actually do shit, and you forgot about the stock market being a rigged game, which is why it collapsed so spectacularly.
    The New Deal gave them hope and confidence in the government and in themselves (the ideology back then was, "self-made man" or some shit like that, so everyone blamed themselves for causing the economical meltdown) since Hoover was such a dumb piece of white trash who dunt do nuthing.

    Really? He's always been one of the board's liberal/Democratic party partisans. Next you're gonna say that you're disappointed that ][ear's not actually the person he claims to be.
    Who's "Choobs"? And anything wrong with being a liberal?

  13. #13
    Markets in '30 are completely different than markets in '10. Primarily, back then people had no idea how the stock market worked yet still invested reverently....

  14. #14
    Orlly? Tell me how people investing now and people investing back then are different.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post


    You mean this multi-year "Great Recession" that we're still probably not quite through with? Yeah, that's not actually a fast recovery. But I can see that you and Chacha have some kind of liberal circle jerk going on here, so I'll get out of the way and let you get back to it.
    You SO want in on it. Jealous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    In contrast to left wingers who are busy deifying Obama for rescuing us out of a recession, despite the bailout having a minimal short-term effect, and a likely incredibly negative long-term effect.
    Liberals only want whats best for the country and they're working hard to make it happen. You should get on board. You're either with us, or against us. And we're making camps for everyone against us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Sure, folks may disagree...but disappointed that Choobs is failing to recognize the boneheadedness of this post.
    I recognize it, silly. I'm just trying to encourage the kid. Plus, I was just bashing Cain and his friends.

    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Really? He's always been one of the board's liberal/Democratic party partisans. Next you're gonna say that you're disappointed that ][ear's not actually the person he claims to be.
    I'm not much of a democrat, but I am very liberal. Still some blood left in me heart, young feller me lad. Unlike certain Manhattanites around here that lost their souls right out of college.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  16. #16
    Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile caring for poor people with supporting protectionism? I think you'd admit that protectionism hurts poor people in other countries. So do you only care for poor people in the US, being a good national socialist and all?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    The New Deal gave them hope and confidence in the government and in themselves (the ideology back then was, "self-made man" or some shit like that, so everyone blamed themselves for causing the economical meltdown) since Hoover was such a dumb piece of white trash who dunt do nuthing.
    Hoover actually made unprecedented interventions in the economy. He also signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, the most sweeping trade package in a century to "protect" American industry in a way that actually hurt American trade. He was simply politically unable (and probably philosophically unwilling) to do some of the stuff that FDR did, which was pretty damn radical at the time.

    The thing is that Roosevelt looked like he was doing something, which had a psychological lift to Americans but effectively did nothing. By 1938 they were weighing another program of massive government expansion to try and mitigate the failure of the first round of programs, but they got sidetracked by that whole WWII thing.

    Regardless, the idea that Hoover was a feckless do-nothing is historically inaccurate and basically the propaganda of high school history teachers that you're supposed to unlearn in either AP US history or in some college-level history courses.

  18. #18
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    Who's "Choobs"?
    EyeKhan. His nym on the old place was Chaloobi.

    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    And anything wrong with being a liberal?
    Aside from everything, not much.

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    I recognize it, silly. I'm just trying to encourage the kid. Plus, I was just bashing Cain and his friends.
    Not that anyone should be surprised by another glaring factual error coming from a liberal, but... I'm not a conservative and neither are my friends. Frankly, you conservatives and liberals deserve each other - it's a match made in hell, and pretty close to what you guys deserve.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Hoover actually made unprecedented interventions in the economy. He also signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, the most sweeping trade package in a century to "protect" American industry in a way that actually hurt American trade. He was simply politically unable (and probably philosophically unwilling) to do some of the stuff that FDR did, which was pretty damn radical at the time.
    He requested FDR to not meddle with the economy twice and both times FDR said he would attempt to fix it to the best of his ability.

    The thing is that Roosevelt looked like he was doing something, which had a psychological lift to Americans but effectively did nothing. By 1938 they were weighing another program of massive government expansion to try and mitigate the failure of the first round of programs, but they got sidetracked by that whole WWII thing.
    It did get a lot of people off the streets though, the size of the government by the end of the New Deal was just era was massive. The government experienced more expansion in this period alone than it did in any other era. It was cyclical in nature because the government funded the construction of a road for example. They hired people. To manage those people and the funds, they had to hire clerks.

    WWII really helped America get out of the recession because consumer goods weren’t being produced since war production was their priority and everything was rationed. People saved a lot of the money they made during this era and couldn’t spend it even if they were willing and able to. Any economist will say that when people hoard their money and don’t spend it, there will be a “rosy future” and the long-run will be much more prosperous than the short-run.

    Regardless, the idea that Hoover was a feckless do-nothing is historically inaccurate and basically the propaganda of high school history teachers that you're supposed to unlearn in either AP US history or in some college-level history courses.
    Don’t get me wrong, Hoover did some good things in his time. I just think he was a good for nothing when it came to the economy because he had a laisser-faire attitude and believe the government shouldn’t involve itself in the economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Aside from everything, not much.
    Be more specific?

  20. #20
    It was projected that the unemployment rate was going to be 25% prior to Obama bailing us out.
    By who?

  21. #21
    Dude, stop skimming paragraphs in your history book. And then re-summarizing them here in sorta inaccurate ways.

    You wanna know why WWII got the US out of recession?

    Because after the war, the US was the only country that had a major surviving industrial base. They could flood the world with cheep quality products for the next two decades without serious competition. Also, after the war Congress decided to turn away from some of FDRs plans for yet another massive New Deal and series of taxes. EG corporate taxes were lowered from 90% to 38%.

    I put this opinion piece up mainly because of the middle sections describing the tax changes.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...046893848.html
    OPINION
    APRIL 12, 2010
    Did FDR End the Depression?
    The economy took off after the postwar Congress cut taxes
    By BURTON FOLSOM JR. AND ANITA FOLSOM

    'He got us out of the Great Depression." That's probably the most frequent comment made about President Franklin Roosevelt, who died 65 years ago today. Every Democratic president from Truman to Obama has believed it, and each has used FDR's New Deal as a model for expanding the government.

    It's a myth. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression—not during the 1930s, and only in a limited sense during World War II.

    Let's start with the New Deal. Its various alphabet-soup agencies—the WPA, AAA, NRA and even the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)—failed to create sustainable jobs. In May 1939, U.S. unemployment still exceeded 20%. European countries, according to a League of Nations survey, averaged only about 12% in 1938. The New Deal, by forcing taxes up and discouraging entrepreneurs from investing, probably did more harm than good.

    What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

    No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

    Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

    Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

    Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

    Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

    Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

    He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.

    Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR's New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade.

    The Great Depression was over, no thanks to FDR. Yet the myth of his New Deal lives on. With the current effort by President Obama to emulate some of FDR's programs to get us out of the recent deep recession, this myth should be laid to rest.

    Mr. Folsom, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?" (Simon & Schuster, 2008). Mrs. Folsom is director of Hillsdale College's annual Free Market Forum.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Dude, stop skimming paragraphs in your history book. And then re-summarizing them here in sorta inaccurate ways.

    You wanna know why WWII got the US out of recession?

    Because after the war, the US was the only country that had a major surviving industrial base. They could flood the world with cheep quality products for the next two decades without serious competition. Also, after the war Congress decided to turn away from some of FDRs plans for yet another massive New Deal and series of taxes. EG corporate taxes were lowered from 90% to 38%.

    I put this opinion piece up mainly because of the middle sections describing the tax changes.
    I'll get back to you when I read chapter 33 and 34. I just finished the WWII chapter. I was just looking at it the way an economist would. So not only am I right from an economist's point of view. But you're wrong, go check your facts next time. Last time I check, the US went into a small period of recession right after WWII.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    By who?
    It was on the news a while back and i most likely heard wrong. I probably was 12.5.

  23. #23
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    Be more specific?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    I'll get back to you when I read chapter 33 and 34.
    There's your problem, right there. Highschool textbooks are a really shitty source of information... particularly when you haven't read the relevant chapters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    So not only am I right from an economist's point of view.
    No, you're not. You're employing the broken window fallacy. (And so was FDR and so is Obama.) It's something that's generally covered in any Econ 101 course, and it's why Keynesian economics is about as credible as Scientology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Young Mage View Post
    But you're wrong, go check your facts next time.
    Really? Really? You're telling him to recheck his facts (which are right, by the way), after telling us you'll have to read the relevant chapters in your textbook before you can get back to us?
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  24. #24
    US had a recession immediately after WWII because the production levels of WWII were not sustainable. I don't see how that contradicts anything Kain said...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile caring for poor people with supporting protectionism? I think you'd admit that protectionism hurts poor people in other countries. So do you only care for poor people in the US, being a good national socialist and all?
    I don't support protectionism. But I do oppose exploitation, even when its wrapped up as 'globalization' and all the economists say its great for everybody. I also oppose denuding our nation of important economic capacity, like heavy manufacturing. You might say that's selfish, but I think the rest of the world is ready and willing to take advantage of our employment charity and when the shoes switch feet they're not likely to reciprocate. Its similar to the reasoning behind not unilaterally destroying all our nuclear weapons, even though we all support peace and want a world free of the nuclear threat. Other people may not hold our ideals and may use them for advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Not that anyone should be surprised by another glaring factual error coming from a liberal, but... I'm not a conservative and neither are my friends. Frankly, you conservatives and liberals deserve each other - it's a match made in hell, and pretty close to what you guys deserve.
    #1. You don't get to criticize anyone for not being factual while denying global warming.

    #2. You can call yourself a flying spaghetti monster for all I care. You are conservative because of your political positions, not for what you call yourself. And yes, Libertarians = Conservatives.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  26. #26
    Do you honestly believe that? What happens when there's "exploitation", but the people in the poor country are still better off being "exploited" than not having a job? Would you still support protectionism?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    No.
    You're as credible as Scientology since you can't back up your statement or wish not to.

    There's your problem, right there. Highschool textbooks are a really shitty source of information... particularly when you haven't read the relevant chapters.
    Except it's a college textbook? And the teacher actually teaches like a college teacher? All we're lectured on in class is about how he liked [insert president] for [insert reason]. I haven't taken a single note in that class since the beginning of the year. What's even worse is that he actually treats it like a college class. We have three test per semester. Fuck one up, you're screwed. Pretty sure that's the farthest thing from a HS course where the teacher will give you a shitload of homework and extra-credit to boost your grade.

    No, you're not. You're employing the broken window fallacy. (And so was FDR and so is Obama.) It's something that's generally covered in any Econ 101 course, and it's why Keynesian economics is about as credible as Scientology.
    Explain how it's a "broken window fallacy". Last time I checked, Keynesian policies were widely used till the 1970s where stagflation occurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    US had a recession immediately after WWII because the production levels of WWII were not sustainable. I don't see how that contradicts anything Kain said...
    You're maybe 5% right. The real reason was: America converting their industry from war products to consumer products and that conversion took a year or two.

  28. #28

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Do you honestly believe that? What happens when there's "exploitation", but the people in the poor country are still better off being "exploited" than not having a job?
    I've always wondered about this one. Is it an excuse to not give them better working conditions?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I've always wondered about this one. Is it an excuse to not give them better working conditions?
    Foreign companies generally pay their workers about twice the local salary (in the third world). If you force them to pay substantially more, they'd have absolutely no reason to set up shop in the third world.
    Hope is the denial of reality

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •