Food for thougth

Give me a break. Originally Posted by ibechill

TRANSLATION: "I have no coherent response."

Astonishing.

TRANSLATION: "I have no coherent response." Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

A quotable quote I hope I can borrow.....

Do I need to provide a "tribute"?

TRANSLATION: "I have no coherent response."

Astonishing. Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

Chrome reposted what he originally posted. So I replied "Give me a break".

For those who need a translation due to their grey brain matter turning brown; give me a break means, say something new and don't repost the same.

.... give me a break means, say something new and don't repost the same. Originally Posted by ibechill

Is that the ONLY MEANING, or is that just YOUR meaning?

The translation you have given seems somewhat limited in scope, and I have heard it said so many times in the past in contexts other than ...

.... repeat posts.

My signature line:

So its no longer 'Bush's Fault' but 'Reagan's Fault?' Talk about absolving Caliphate Obama from accountability!

Gimme a break!

So its no longer 'Bush's Fault' but 'Reagan's Fault?' Talk about absolving Caliphate Obama from accountability!

Gimme a break! Originally Posted by gnadfly

My post didn't say it was anybody's fault.

I only posted because I like the picture.

Ibepostin, the "no coherent response" troll.

Try to stay on topic.

Likewise gnat.

• REVIEW & OUTLOOK
• AUGUST 28, 2010

The 1.6% Recovery

The results of the Obama economic experiment are coming in.



To no one's surprise except perhaps Vice President Joe Biden's, second quarter economic growth was revised down yesterday to 1.6% from the prior estimate of 2.4%, which was down from first quarter growth of 3.7%, which was down from the 2009 fourth quarter's 5%. Economic recoveries are supposed to go in the other direction.



The downward revision was anticipated given the poor early economic reports for the third quarter, including a plunge in new home sales, mediocre manufacturing data, volatile jobless claims and even (after a healthy period) weaker corporate profits. Many economists fear that third quarter growth could be negative. Even if the economy avoids a double-dip recession, the current pace of growth is too sluggish to create many new jobs or improve middle-class living standards.
As recently as August 3, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner took to our competitor's pages to declare that this couldn't happen. "Welcome to the Recovery," he wrote, describing how the $862 billion government stimulus was still rolling out, business investment was booming, and the economy was poised for sustainable growth.

We all make mistakes, but the problem for the American people is that Mr. Geithner's blunder is conceptual. He and President Obama and their economic coterie really believe that government spending can stimulate growth by triggering private "demand," that tax rates are irrelevant to investment decisions, that waves of new regulation can be absorbed by business with little impact on costs or hiring, and that politicians can assail capitalists without having any effect on the movement of capital.
This has been the great Washington policy experiment of the last three years, and it isn't turning out too well. If prosperity were a function of government stimulus, our economy should be booming. The Fed has kept interest rates at near-zero for nearly two years, while Congress has flooded the economy with trillions of dollars in spending, loan guarantees, $8,000 tax credits for housing, "cash for clunkers," and so much more. Never before has government tried to do so much and achieved so little.
Now that the failure is becoming obvious, the liberal explanation is that things would have been worse without all of this government care and feeding. The same economists who recommended the stimulus are now producing studies, based on their Keynesian demand models, claiming that it "saved or created" millions of jobs, even as the overall economy has lost millions of jobs. The counterfactual is impossible to disprove, but the American people can see the reality with their own eyes.
The nearby table compares growth in the current recovery with the recovery following the recession of 1981-82, the last time the jobless rate exceeded 10%. The contrast is stark.
Then after three quarters the recovery was in high gear. Now it is decelerating. Then tax rates were falling, interest rates were coming down and the regulatory state was in retreat. Now taxes are poised to rise sharply, interest rates can't get any lower, and federal agencies are hassling business at every turn. Then business investment was exploding. Now companies are sitting on something like $2 trillion, reluctant to take risks when they don't know what new costs government might next impose on them.
To borrow a phrase, maybe it's time for a change.

A footnote: Only time will tell whether the US economy will continue to fade into a double-dip recession under Obamanomics, but we can plainly see that's the direction in which we're heading. Pretty much every sentient being knows that. What might surprise, however, is the growth track of the poor old sclerotic eurozone, led by Germany, whose last quarter was its best since the Berlin Wall fell: http://www.investmentu.com/2010/Augu...ly-record.html

It's worth remembering the contretemps at last summer's US-Germany summit when Obama lectured Angela Merkel on her rejection of Keynesian stimulus, admonishing her that if she didn't lavish huge sums of borrowed money in a redistributive way the whole world would suffer for it. Frau Merkel stood pat...as far as I know she resisted the urge to go "Up yours, nitwit!", but she did ignore him. One year later: German economy is growing, robustly...ours continues to shrink, under Obama.

When it's clear the malign taint of Obama is finished, that's when our wallets will fill back up (except for you government parasites).

The results of the Obama economic experiment are coming in. Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

Please keep in mind that this guy "organized" the removal of insulation in housing, but neglected to "organize" the replacement of the insulation.

1. health care reform
2. the economy
3. Iraq
4. Gulf oil contamination
5. Afghanistan
6.___________________

The list will grow until January 2013

Please keep in mind that this guy "organized" the removal of insulation in housing, but neglected to "organize" the replacement of the insulation.

1. health care reform
2. the economy
3. Iraq
4. Gulf oil contamination
5. Afghanistan
6.___________________

The list will grow until January 2013 Originally Posted by LexusLover

Obama is like Mike Holmes on HGTV. Holmes helps homeowners repair their house after shoddy work was performed by someone else. Now Obama is trying to fix up the mess that was left. Guess what, it usually cost more when done the correct way.

Obama is like Mike Holmes on HGTV. Originally Posted by ibechill

The primary difference is Holmes is honest. Obama is not, ....

.... but he does pride himself in taking credit where credit is NOT DUE.

Another difference is that when Holmes walks out the door, the job is done!

1. Is the economy recovering?
2. Is the Iraq war "finished"?
3. Has the health care been "reformed"?
4. Is the Afghan war going well?
5. Has the oil been cleaned up in the Gulf?

Obaminable is full of shit and hot air.

""I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead."

How about 30 seconds for a photo op?

So you admit Bush was the shoddy contractor.

So you admit Bush was the shoddy contractor. Originally Posted by ibechill

Is Bush always going to be the excuse given by the Obaminable apologists, who purportedly supported Obaminable and voted for him (the bumper stickers have been wearing off right ... and left!), after observing his ineptness for doing much of anything except munching on vacations?

If not "always," for just how long?