Has Obama grown a spine?

The problem I have is that these things would have happened had Obama done nothing. You can't lose jobs forever. Housing prices will find a point of equilibrium and banks will loan money. However, the democrats like to give Obama credit for what would be natural market results. What they ignore is the abnormally suppressed rebound of the market. Why has the recovery been so anemic? Although there is no way to prove it I suspect that the recovery would have been more rapid if Obama had done nothing. Historically the economy has rebounded more rapidly after a recession. Originally Posted by Laz

It's hard to say what would've / wouldn't have happened without government intervention (in terms of the recovery). Since our economy is so tied to the global economy these days, the economic crisis in Europe, unrest in the Middle East, etc. (all things out of our control) have had a huge impact on our own recovery.

Most economists do agree though that if the government hadn't acted during the economic freefall we were in at the end of President Bush's term of office, we would've suffered a far worse recession than the one we're in now.

Anybody that calls the last four years a "recovery" is being dishonest. If a patient is in coma today and you come back four years later and he's still in a coma, he's not recovering. Originally Posted by joe bloe

If a patient is dying quickly, you stabilize him, then subsequently put him on life support while he recovers slowly, then I would call that a recovery. It may not be a full recovery, but the patient is still recovering.

If a patient is dying quickly, you stabilize him, then subsequently put him on life support while he recovers slowly, then I would call that a recovery. It may not be a full recovery, but the patient is still recovering. Originally Posted by TPJR

The patient is sick because of the cumulative effects of a lifetime of drug addiction. Dr Obama is treating the symptoms by massively increasing the dosage of the drug that made him sick in the first place. It may mask the symtoms for a while, but in the long run it kills the patient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9puGAMCAZU

The great thing about our country is checks and balances Originally Posted by ncrtt1

I would say we have cheeks and balances , meaning that when things are at least perceived to be going well economically/socially, voters typically kiss the ass cheecks of whichever party is in the majority. But when for example, the economy starts a downslide as is usually been the case about every 10 years lately, the voters "balance" things out by kissing the other party's ass.

If a patient is dying quickly, you stabilize him, then subsequently put him on life support while he recovers slowly, then I would call that a recovery. It may not be a full recovery, but the patient is still recovering. Originally Posted by TPJR

I have good reason to believe that you would not find any physician (except for a quack) who would us the word "recovery" for what you described ... even a "partial recovery" ....

a prudent physician would report that the patient has .. "stabilized" ... period.

Quack Obaminable and Jester Joe wanted all the empt-headed 50.5% to actually believe there was a "recovery" in progress ....

3 consecutive months of flat 7.8% jobless is NOT A "RECOVERY" ..

usually been the case about every 10 years lately, the voters "balance" things out by kissing the other party's ass. Originally Posted by TPJR

2012 was different ...

.... 50.5% actually thought it was a sirloin they were kissing!

Apparently you do also.

I have good reason to believe that you would not find any physician (except for a quack) who would us the word "recovery" for what you described ... even a "partial recovery" ....

a prudent physician would report that the patient has .. "stabilized" ... period.

Quack Obaminable and Jester Joe wanted all the empt-headed 50.5% to actually believe there was a "recovery" in progress ....

3 consecutive months of flat 7.8% jobless is NOT A "RECOVERY" .. Originally Posted by LexusLover

We must have different definitions of recovery then, because I don't see how going from an economy in freefall, to an economy which is producing a net gain of jobs, albeit not very many, is anything but a recovery.

We must have different definitions of recovery then, .... Originally Posted by TPJR

Yes, we do, this is not a "recovery" ...


Keep in mind, please, that these guys telling you there is a "recovery" also told you that they beat the "terrorists" too ... they don't use the word any more!

The question posed by the thread title is short and simple.

The appropriate answer is equally succinct: "Of course not!"

If he had any backbone, Obama would begin engaging in some straight talk about the sort of tax increases we're going to need to impose in order to pay for his expensive agenda.

When he assumed office four years ago, Obama sought to raise already very bloated levels of federal government spending to new heights, and he obviously got his wish. I would have preferred an economic recovery and growth agenda, not one centered around political payoffs and entitlement expansions.

On the other hand, many people prefer something a little closer to a European-style social democracy. If that's your view, fine. Just acknowledge that you'd like for the politicians you support to be honest advocates for the sort of tax system needed to finance such lavish levels of social welfare and entitlement spending.

Claims or insinuations that you can make much progress toward fiscal balance by protecting everyone making less than $250K per year from large tax increases, while maintaining all other political promises, are profoundly dishonest. Every numerate individual realizes that.

Apparently you do also. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually I've never believed that Obama was anything special. Nobody who has been paying attention could legitimately come away thinking that Obama's a different kind of politician. The thing I don't like is when people demonize based on outright lies, especially when there's plenty of things to legitimately criticize him for

The thing I don't like is when people demonize based on outright lies, especially when there's plenty of things to legitimately criticize him for Originally Posted by TPJR

I feel your pain. That was a theme of mine for the 8 years of the last President. I also have expressed my support for Obaminable when he gives the green light to get rid of garbage who have as their goal to destroy or injure the U.S. and/or her people, regardless of where they are found or what is their citizenship. And frankly I don't care if he drones them or stones them!

When he assumed office four years ago, Obama sought to raise already very bloated levels of federal government spending to new heights, and he obviously got his wish. I would have preferred an economic recovery and growth agenda, not one centered around political payoffs and entitlement expansions. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

His "vision" and "plan" are consistent with wealth redistribution, ...

..... which plays to his base.*

*The problem is a part of his base don't have their "wealth" in the U.S.!

We must have different definitions of recovery then, because I don't see how going from an economy in freefall, to an economy which is producing a net gain of jobs, albeit not very many, is anything but a recovery. Originally Posted by TPJR

Market economies heat up and then they cool down. They overheat and then they over correct. After a severe recession you typically get a healthy bounce in the economy. We're not getting the typical bounce this time, apparently because the debt burden is so enormous.

After a freefall there's supposed to be a bounce.

After a freefall there's supposed to be a bounce. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Where's BT when we need him?

He's the board expert on "freefalls" ... "bounce" at the end of a "freefall" ... and

.... also ending up elsewhere beside the intended LZ and all wet!

His "vision" and "plan" are consistent with wealth redistribution, ... Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think that whole wealth redistribution insult is overblown. The fact is that if you're in support of paying taxes, then you're in support of wealth redistribution, since the whole point of taxes is to take the country's wealth and direct it towards other areas like infrastructure and the military. The question is, is the wealth being directed towards worthwhile ventures?