The Humor Behind Obama Economic Logic

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 08:20 | Posted in Measure 37 | 19 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Obama Must Go

    Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Obama and his crew of lawyer/political hacks are economic illiterates? Can anyone point out anything this jerk has done to improve the economy? The sooner he gets voted out of office the better.

    • v person

      “Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Obama and his crew of lawyer/political hacks are economic illiterates? ”

      Compared to what…the Republican party? The party that governed most of the past decade that ended their rule with a net loss in American wealth, near zero new net jobs, a decline in median income, a rise in the poverty rate, a lower stock market value than where they started, and a complete squandering of a hard won budget surplus the last Democratic president left them.

      And since in office, Obama and his incompetents have managed to get the economy and the market growing again. Employment soon to follow.

      • Anonymous

        Congress has been controlled by Democrats since 2006. That’s at least the last 30% of the ‘last 10 years’ you’re talking about. Bush allowed Congress just about everything and anything they wanted after 2006 as long as he got his GWOT.

        Obama, posturing as the anti-Reagan, is clearly anti-business. There will be no surge of employment until either Obama backs off his agenda or we get a regime change. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

        Obama believes Republicans are a greater threat to the U.S. than our real enemies. That’s why you are still blaming Republicans for the Democrats’ errors. After your side’s fiasco in Massachusetts, that won’t fly, no matter how much air you keep blowing into it.

      • Anonymous

        “Compared to what…the Republican party?”

        IRRELEVANT! The post is about Obama and his team and their economic plans. You don’t address this issue. You try to divert attention away from this issue by attacking someone else’s flaw.

        It is equivalent to this:

        Person A: Damn, dude, look at you. You weigh like 500 pounds. You must have put on 100 pounds just since last year. And look, you’ve got two buckets of extra crispy and two boxes of Krispy Kremes in your lap, with a case of soda at your feet. You are just going to get fatter and fatter until your heart seizes and you collapse and die.

        Person B: Well, Kirstie Alley gained back all her weight after Jenny Craig!

        See, Kirstie Alley has no bearing on whether or not Person B in this example is obese and getting worse. Just like the Republican politicians who spent too much money between the 2002 and 2006 elections (the only time when the Republican Party truly had actual control – less than half of those last ten years) have no bearing on whether or not Obama is going to bankrupt our nation.

        Maybe this example will work better:

        After 2002, prior to the 2006 elections, the politicians in charge – who happened to be Republicans – were busy poking you in the ass with a stick. Yes, this was bad. It hurt. It was annoying. You just wanted to turn around and slap them – but they just kept going. So finally, come 2006 elections, you did succeed in landing a solid punch and elected democrats instead.

        Since then, the politicians in charge have switched from a stick to a red-hot iron poker. And they have changed from poking your ass to stabbing your eyes.

        Does the fact that you got poked in the ass for a while before this mean there is nothing wrong with having a red-hot iron poker stabbing you in the eyes?

    • anonymous

      All anyone has to do is ask him how he got into Occidental College. No need to wait until 2012.
      Game, set, match. Obama is not Constitutionally qualified for POTUS, is a USURPER, and anyone who doubts this need only answer this question: How do YOU know who he is? How? Have you seen proof? I haven’t and that is why I want to know who the Hell he is. Fair?

    • Mort

      But he does the teleprompter so well.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Anyone who thought Obama had improving the economy as a priority should have rethought that when he scheduled 75% of the stimulus spending to be a year out from inception. If they didn’t get it then, well, wasting months on a hacked together health care bill that the American people clearly did not want should have been a clue.

    The longer the economy is crippled, the more chance for “emergency” measures to gain power.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Obama Must Go On:*

    Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Obama and his crew of lawyer/political hacks are economic illiterates?

    *V Person:*

    Compared to what…the Republican party?

    *Bob T:*

    Note that the previous message sender targeted his criticism for Obama and his team, and not the Democratic Party as a whole. You seem to target the entire Republican Party in turn, which is far too silly and simplistic an explanation. If you narrow it down, you’d be correct to state that Bush jr and his people were economic idiots. At the same time, every president in recent decades inherits an overly micro-managed and regulated economy and a multitude of government programs that harm rather than help the economy. Arguing over tax cuts and tax increases is too narrow, for example.

    *V Person:*

    And since in office, Obama and his incompetents have managed to get the economy and the market growing again. Employment soon to follow.

    *Bob T:*

    Hardly. The economy will always do that on its own, as it did in the early 20s for example while Mrs. Wilson and then Harding looked on. The result is that government doesn’t get credit for “saving” us from a serious downturn. But a true leader shouldn’t care. It’s in government’s interest to want to be seen as saving us even when they are screwing us over.

    Keep in mind that when Obama said that there’s something wrong with the United States consuming 24% of the world’s annual energy supply while being home to only about 5% or so of the world’s population, he was displaying extreme economic ignorance.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • Jerry

    Sorry, but employment is not soon to follow. It keeps going DOWN in case you have not noticed.
    Dream on.

    • v person

      “Sorry, but employment is not soon to follow. It keeps going DOWN in case you have not noticed.
      Dream on. ”

      That is why I said soon to follow. You are assuming past tense equals future tense. Employment is a lagging measure in all recessions. Growth precedes employment recovery. Look it up.

      “Note that the previous message sender targeted his criticism for Obama and his team, and not the Democratic Party as a whole.”

      Yes…duly noted. Obama and his team are so far light years ahead of Bush and his team. But beyond that, consider that the Republican party line, which Bush followed slavishly, is that economic management equals tax cuts and deregulation. That is the program since Reagan, which Bush and his team followed. So if they were idiots, they were only so because they went along. The decade of 2000-2010 indicates that program, if it ever was useful, no longer delivers. It brought us 2 recessions, zero growth, loss of wealth, and mounting deficits.

      Beyond that, Obama’s economic acumen can’t be judged after 1 year in office. If you had judged Reagan after 1 year you would have concluded he was a failure. as most Americans did in 2002.

      The economy always recovers on its own? Yes, I suppose given enough time and misery that might be true. Hoover certainly thought it would.

  • Anonymous

    VD,

    You forgot the homeless population which Bush soared after Clinton had reduced it to near zero.

    And locally Kulongoski, the Legialature, Adams and Metro are busy adopting Obama-like and California-like approached to boost our economy and jobs.

    See how easy it is to be an ignorant jackass?

    Between Bush’s and Clintons’ reckless spending, expanding goverment and the repeal of glass-steagall the current doom was bipartisan.

    http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-and-the-current-financial-and-mortgage-crisis-part-two-of-an-indepth-investigative-report.html

    Oregon on the other hand is run by a saturation of incompetent, nitiwit leftists at every level of governement. Nitwit leftists who also long ago decided ethics were optional when their important agenda needs advancing.
    This abundantly obvious reality you have no abiliity to recognize.

    Like with so many issues such as AGW you’re perception is hopelessly warped.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Anonymous:*

    You forgot the homeless population which Bush soared after Clinton had reduced it to near zero.

    *Bob T:*

    It hadn’t been reduced by Clinton at all, but was simply ignored by the media and other supporters of the Democratic Party. Last thing they wanted to do was to show TV reports or issue statements on how many homeless there were while a Democrat was in the White House. As soon as Clinton was gone — boom!!! — the homeless were back! They do the same thing with the middle class. When a Repub’s in, the middle class is “disappearing”, or “already gone”, and then they’re back quietly when a Democrat is in again, within hours.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • Bob Tiernan

    *v person:*

    Obama and his team are so far light years ahead of Bush and his team.

    *Bob T:*

    Hardly. They’re probably about even, with tyhe exception being that Obama himself has revealed not a single clue and thus relies on his team members. I think Bush Jr had at least memorized some basic economic principles, but that never meant anything to him. Again, this is not a Bush v, Obama argument.

    *v person:*

    But beyond that, consider that the Republican party line, which Bush followed slavishly, is that economic management equals tax cuts and deregulation.

    *Bob T:*

    Well, only if you cannot manage to implement other changes. But the amount of de-reg that went on was a tiny, tiny fraction of what could have been done, despite the propaganda (yeah, like bamking was “deregulated” – oh sure it was).

    *v person:*

    The decade of 2000-2010 indicates that program, if it ever was useful, no longer delivers. It brought us 2 recessions, zero growth, loss of wealth, and mounting deficits.

    *Bob T:*

    If you check the stats that even Obama’s own Sec of the Commerce etc will provide, almost all of the quarters during the Bush Jr years showed growth. You must have heard your version on a stupid Air America show and repeated it without checking it yourself. Not that I think such growth was enough to make it a free market economy, but you’ve got to stop lying about this. As for the rest of that statement, it’s pretty much accurate except for the two recessions. The first one was actually Clinton’s parting gift. As for the mounting deficits, can you provide the name of more than a few Congresscritters of either party who voted against the budgets?

    *v person:*

    The economy always recovers on its own? Yes, I suppose given enough time and misery that might be true. Hoover certainly thought it would.

    *Bob T:*

    No, Hoover did not sit back and do nothing. You really need to stop repeating these silly myths you get from comic books. I’m always looking for signs that you are getting more intelligent, but I’m not yet seeing it.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • v person

      “almost all of the quarters during the Bush Jr years showed growth.”

      What value is there in quarterly growth if the net, after the decade, is that we are behind where we started? What economic theory says that 1 step forward and 2 steps back equals progress? What accounting or business class did you learn that in? The same one that handed out bonuses to investment bankers for quarterly profits built on investment sand?

      I don’t listen to Air America. Maybe some blowhard there also pointed out reality. That doesn’t make it any less true. If Rush Limbaugh says the sky is blue I don’t assume it is really red. I don’t think we ever had a decade in the history of the nation where we ended up behind where we started economically. Not even the 1930s. Maybe the 20s, though data is shaky. So this is truly a remarkable achievement. And make no mistake that it was Republican economics that coincided with this. So these lectures that Obama has not fixed this mess in a single year ring a bit hollow.

      There once was a time…long long ago…when “conservatives” such as yourself preached personal responsibility. That day appears long past. Obama gets blame for a rotten economy he inherited from conservatives. He gets advice to double down on the same policies that led us into the pit we are in. Cut taxes and deregulate. And to boot he is supposed to cut government spending, keep fighting 2 wars and maybe start a third (Iran,) and balance the budget. Oh, and I forgot. Now he is supposed to NOT CUT Medicare subsidies to private insurance companies. What a lot of nonsense.

      Obama is not an economist. He relies on actual economists to advise him on policies. This is a problem? Name which president was an economist? Reagan? His first 2 years were an economic mess, in large part because he had to clean up after Carter. Obama now has to clean up after Bush and it is going to take a while. And it is going to take a shift in policies. Going back is not a solution.

      “Not that I think such growth was enough to make it a free market economy, but you’ve got to stop lying about this. ”

      Lying about what? That Bush policies failed because we did not have a 100% free market? You remind me of the unrepentant communists I have met who still claim the Soviets would have succeeded had they ever tried “true socialism.” Please. We don’t live in a world where pure theories can ever be reality. That holds as much for free markets as anything else. Name me a single economic policy where Bush differed from Reagan. Both cut taxes, cut regulation, failed to cut government spending, and drove deficits up. One is considered successful and the other not. I’d call that the luck of timing and nothing more.

      “No, Hoover did not sit back and do nothing.”

      He did next to nothing for the first 3 years. Then he did too little and too late. Economic growth resumed under Roosevelt, not Hoover. And only AFTER much regulation and government spending commenced.

      Trust me on this Bob, my intelligence is not dependent to your being able to locate it.

      • Tami

        “Economic growth resumed under Roosevelt, not Hoover. And only AFTER much regulation and government spending commenced.”

        Oh, and the WWII “stimulus” was what – insignificant? I’m sure that was just an innocent omission on your part, you economic genius, you. It’s established fact that “…regulation and goverment spending…” were the prime drivers, as always, of economic growth. Hey, maybe FDR *created* the war just so he could rescue the economy! Hay, maybe Obama should rethink his pacifist apologizing stance and start another war – that’d be OK with dean.

        It would be noble – making the world safe for US government pensioners and citizens everywhere whose existence is dependent upon government jobs and contracts.

        (snort)

        “Trust me on this Bob, my intelligence is not dependent to your being able to locate it.”

        Geez, I hope someone does. If it actually exists, it’s been MIA for years. Thank God for your puppetmasters, huh, dean?

        • v person

          Ignorance must be such sweet bliss Tami. I need to try it out. Maye you could share some?

          From the time Roosevelt was elected until 1937, when he curtailed deficit spending, the economy grew over 40%. That’s right. All those New Deal programs that did not work, banking regulation, make work programs and so forth resulted in a 10% average annual growth rate well before the war started. After balancing the budget in 37, the economy again tanked. Roosevelt wisely reversed course and went back into deficit spending again. By the time the war started the “depression” was long over. No need to start a war for the economy. There was still a high unemployment rate,and the war ended that. But economic growth was already happenin at a fast rate.

          http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth

          As for Obama being a pacifist. You may have missed the memo on this one as well, but he more than doubled the number of troops fighting in Afghanistan. And the military has been picking off al Queda via drones. Funny activities for a “pacifist” to order.

  • Anonymous

    Bob,

    I was kidding about the Clinton homeless. It was as you stated.

    VD,
    No, If Rush Limbaugh says the sky is blue you don’t assume it is really red.
    But if the left says anything it’s what they say it is.

    For instance the IPCC and it’s troops.
    You’ve deliberately ignored the many red flags and fatal flaws for years. Pretending as those you were merely following the best and most credible science. You’ve been a liar and bafoon in that regard.

    As was suspected by many the IPCC was saturated and corrupted by activists long ago.

    from: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/#more-15636

  • Moe

    I say logic is a word that can not be used around this guy.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *v peson:*

    [Hoover] did next to nothing for the first 3 years. Then he did too little and too late.

    *Bob T:*

    Clearly you know very little about this except for what you receive as talking points. It serves a purpose to claim that Hoover did nothing because to acknowledge that he started policies not unlike New Deal stuff doesn’t make interventionists look that good. Nor does it aid your cause to admit that the Federal Reserve blew it by tightening up the money supply. Some thought the Fed was created to help, Think again.

    *v person:*

    Economic growth resumed under Roosevelt, not Hoover. And only AFTER much regulation and government spending commenced.

    *Bob T:*

    The American economy was going to rebound eventually — perhaps sooner or perhaps later — no matter who was president. Look at the recession c.1921 and how Harding did nothing and it went away, kust as they went away in previous examples before the government decided that it needed to at least look like it was “doing something”. FDR’s first batch of “help” made things worse, by the way. No othjer president would have taken so long to get things going. But you lie when you say that things were getting better. Had it not been for the cranking up of production for the war (supplying the Brits and for our own expected entry), FDR would have spent his entire 12 years and one month in office as a depression president with no clue. That is, *if* he would have been re-elected to a third term.

    Bob Tiernan

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)