Obamanomics - "I'am Creating Jobs"

TTH: Nice try with the lawyering trick of calling me a liar for posting what others have said; which you disagree with. Please point to my lie in the thread, in bold, and I will retract if what I said was a lie. But be prepared to offer your own apology if you don't.

You are alittle too quick to call people liars and things.....TTH says.."You and the rest of the American Taliban to get the fuck out of this free country. If you want to live in theocracy, pack your shit, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, hit the fuckin' road!! Leave America for those of us who really believe in freedom, liberty and the Constitution. I've had my belly full of poseurs...." Your the phony poseur in professing your democratic principals...

BTW; to keep it on topic, Obama's failing economy polciies, the Obama economy produced only 18,000 jobs last month and uemployment has increased to 9.2%.

BTW; to keep it on topic, Obama's failing economy polciies, the Obama economy produced only 18,000 jobs last month and uemployment has increased to 9.2%. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Do you understand wtf a business cycle is?

The problem with this one is the bebt of the American consumer. That had nothing to do with Obama.

------------

The problem with your arguement is that total consumer debt in America has been declining (at historical levels) for two years while Obama's polcies have driven up unemployment levels. If there was linkage, as your post says, then unemployement should be on a downward trend as well...

.... And the nearly $15 trillion in federal debt, with 40% of all federal revenues going to pay interest has no consequences???

Do you understand wtf a business cycle is?

The problem with this one is the bebt of the American consumer. That had nothing to do with Obama. Originally Posted by WTF

TTH: Nice try with the lawyering trick of calling me a liar for posting what others have said; which you disagree with. Please point to my lie, in bold, and I will retract if what I said was a lie. But be prepared to offer your own apology if you don't.

You are alittle too quick to call people liars and things.....TTH says.."You and the rest of the American Taliban to get the fuck out of this free country. If you want to live in theocracy, pack your shit, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, hit the fuckin' road!! Leave America for those of us who really believe in freedom, liberty and the Constitution. I've had my belly full of poseurs...." Your the phony poseur in professing your democratic principals...
. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Here are 3 definitions of a lie.
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

The author of the story you posted did number 2 (Pun intended)

You performed #3. Not by intent but by laziness. You didn't look at the report yourself. In the story reached by the link you provided, there was a link to the report. When you post info from someone else, you vouch for them. You could have checked the report but the story was exactly what you wanted to hear. It was TGTBT. The story was so far off the mark of the report I would fire the author. He didn't spin, he totally misled.

Have you read the report yet?

Your misleading lies.....

3. an inaccurate or false statement - I never made an inaccurate or falst statement. Please highlight the lie in my thread. Use the bold function so everybody can see the lie.



You performed #3. ?

When you post info from someone else, you vouch for them. This is a retard standard. I posted a link to the EC report; and I certainly don't vouch for all the information in that report, nor their conclusions. But obvously you have drank the kool aid............

. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

.... And the nearly $15 trillion in federal debt, with 40% of all federal revenues going to pay interest has no consequences???

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Wrong. Again. Do you just make it up as you go along?

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/pdfs/net_interest_share_fed_rev.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010

---------

With a jobs program like Obama's we will surely go bankrupt. What is the name of the program that will bankrupt us? It's unbeliveable that he wants to keep the keys to car to continue this ride in the ditch. America can't afford this guy for a 2nd term.

Here is a link to the report by the WH Council of Economic Advisors; the members whom were all handpicked by Obama. This is a link to a blog on the weekly standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ob_576014.html

The last paragraph sums the situation best..It doesn't sum up the report. It sums up the authors position..."All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus. Not said by you but the report states the opposite” Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Here you go.

Just remember, the Republican House has to approve anything...and they usually go allow with Obama. Nice One Party system. The answer isn't Romneycare, or OBachmanna either. The solution lies with voting out all incumbents, except Justin Amash and electing Ron Paul as president. No more IRS and jobs will come home!

MMM says.....

Originally Posted by Whirlaway
With a jobs program like Obama's we will surely go bankrupt. What is the name of the program that will bankrupt us? The Obama program of more federal spending, higher debts, expanded government; coupled with higher unemployement and dwindling middle class incomes. No lie here. It is opinion. If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be posting in this section of ECCIE.

It's unbeliveable that he wants to keep the keys to car to continue this ride in the ditch. America can't afford this guy for a 2nd term.

Here is a link to the report by the WH Council of Economic Advisors; the members whom were all handpicked by Obama. This is a link to a blog on the weekly standard. Correct, the link to the WH CA report is in the 1st paragraph of the linked WS blog. No lie here. Obviously you have a hard on for the WS blog and don't like the fact that I used it to direct readers to the WH CA report referenced in the WS blog. But there is no lie in the statement you quote.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ob_576014.html

The last paragraph sums the situation best..It doesn't sum up the report. It sums up the authors position....You are attempting to deceive in your own thread. I never said it summed up the report. I said the last paragraph sums the situation. You are attempting to deceive in your own thread here, an attempt at lying on your part.

"All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus. Not said by you but the report states the opposite”... I never said that was an EA report conclusion. That was a quote from the WS blog..I put quotes around the WS statements...You are really reaching beyond reason on this one MM. Why you would call me a liar for quoting from the WS blog shows what an ideologue you are.

BTW; your own avatar/signature is full of lies...News flash: Austin isn't the center of the universe !! Oh wait, that was a statement of sentiment, an opinon, I get it - not a lie, my mistake.

The problem with your arguement is that total consumer debt in America has been declining (at historical levels) for two years while Obama's polcies have driven up unemployment levels. If there was linkage, as your post says, then unemployement should be on a downward trend as well... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Obama's policies? The real linkage that's missing is in regards to the argument that low taxes will help create jobs.

Taxes are as low as they've been in decades. When are your rich buddies going to start creating those jobs that Bush, Boehner, Norquist, Rush, O'Reilly and Kudlow promised us?

The Republican answer? Cut taxes even further. Yeah, yeah, next time it'll work!

The capitalists will start investing and hiring when they have an understanding of what the federal regulatory environment will be, what the tax structure will be, what the debt load will be, what the limits of government inteference will be. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda scared the shit out of corporate America. They are still processing what the impacts of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank Financial Reform legislation will have on their business models. Hell there was over 6,000 pages of new legislation/regulations piled on American businesses in those 2 bills. It would be irresponsible of Corporate America to venture forward without fully understanding how they will be burdened by these 2 pieces of Obama legislation. In addition, they can't be sure that they won't get hammered with more legislation if the Obama agenda isn't neutered going forward.

But hey, they asked for Obama and they got what they paid for IMO...Obama was bought and paid for by Wall Street in 2008. And I bet they will back him again. Afterall, he plied billions of TARP and stimulus money back into their coffers upon immediately be sworn in. In addition, his treasury helped them make billions in the bond trade -quantitative easing deals know as QE 2.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/politics/13donor.html

WTF, your equation of capitalism with Republicanism is so dated it isn't even funny. The new paradigm is big business - big government. Corporate America fears the small government, low debt agenda of the Tea Party. They realize they can make tons of money by working with the big government cats in Washington. Be they Republican or Democrat. That's why the US Chamber of Commerce is fighting the agenda of the Tea Party.

Big Business knows that they can't easily lobby the 50 individual statehouses in the US if federalism prevails and big government falls. Imagine if GE wanted to get some kind of special treatmnent; their lobbyists having to go to 50 statehouses, talking to untold legislators intead of just sending their lobbying team to Washington to meet with a few key players who will be working for them in just a few short years.?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-O9WyO8tFI

When are your rich buddies going to start creating those jobs that Bush, Boehner, Norquist, Rush, O'Reilly and Kudlow promised us?
Originally Posted by Doove

Whirly---I do not claim to be an economist but I am pragmatic. The simple facts are that the recession began before Obama took office. December 2007 to be exact! Unfortunately, Obama's policies have been unable to stimulate the jobs market due to the worst economic downturn in America since the Great Depression. Need I remind you that the recession began under George W. Bush's watch, not Obama's?

With that said, I believe Obama made a serious mistake in yielding to the Republicans when he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. We have now had ten years to evaluate the impact of the Bush tax cuts. The fact that we have been mired in the worst economic downturn in 70+ years speaks volumes as it relates to the overall impact the tax cuts have had on our nations economy and the current job market.

I do not understand why you and the rest of your fellow Tea Partiers fail to recognize this simple fact. In order to make money, you first need to spend money. Unfortunately, we have no money to spend. Why? The tax rate is too low and the end result is a shortage of monthly income! It really is pretty basic, isn't it?

We have tried it your way for the past 10 years and your way resulted in the Great Recession. Why not put the tax rates at the same level they were under Bill Clinton? During Clinton's final term, we not only had a robust economy but we had a healthy job creation rate! In fact, I would venture to say the final 4 years of Clinton's 8 years in office was far and away, the best economy of OUR lifetime. Was it not?

BigTex:

I actually agree with some of your comments...but:

[quote=bigtex;1456170]Whirly---I do not claim to be an economist but I am a realist. The simple facts are that the recession began before Obama took office. December 2007 to be exact! Unfortunately, Obama's policies have been unable to stimulate the jobs market due to the worst economic downturn in America since the Great Depression. Need I remind you that the recession began under George W. Bush's watch, not Obama's?

With that said, I believe Obama made a serious mistake in yielding to the Republicans when he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. We have now had ten years to evaluate the impact of the Bush tax cuts. The fact that we have been mired in the worst economic downturn in 70+ years speaks volumes as it relates to the overall impact the tax cuts have had on our nations economy and the current job market.

I do not understand why you and the rest of your fellow Tea Partiers fail to recognize this simple fact. In order to make money, you first need to spend money. Unfortunately, we have no money to spend. Why? The tax rate is too low and the end result is a shortage of monthly income! It really is pretty basic, isn't it?

We have tried it your way for the past 10 years and your way resulted in the Great Recession. We haven't tried it my way ! And we certainly haven't tried it the Tea Party way which advocates for smaller government, lower regulation, lower taxes and more state federalism!

Why not put the tax rates at the same level they were under Bill Clinton? During Clinton's final term, we not only had a robust economy but we had a healthy job creation rate! In fact, I would venture to say the final 4 years of Clinton's 8 years in office was far and away, the best economy of OUR lifetime. Was it not? I would go along with rolling the taxes to the Clinton era, if we also roll the debt, government budget, and size of government to the same levels we had in the Clinton era! And during the final Clinton term, didn't we have a Republican controlled Congress?[/quote]