The definition of insanity
So, while his popularity falls because unemployment is rising (against his promises), manufacturing continues to decrease, the President decides that he must be doing something right so he proposes more of the same unrestrained government spending;
President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to “spend our way out of this recession” until more Americans are back at work.
“Spend our way out of a recession”. That’s like killing off a few million people to lower the rate of suicide.
OK, he inherited a bad economy – just like George Bush inherited a bad economy – but he hasn’t done anything to fix it except drive us deeper in debt and our currency (and ability to borrow) is now in danger because we’re about to lose our AAA bond rating. SO let’s spend some more.
Voters should remember this line from today’s speech when they go the polls next year “And we were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party….”
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Economy
Jonn-
Go to BigGovernment.com and read about Robert Creamer. This dude was at the State Dinner, the same one where the VA couple crashed and has written a book with ten points for progressives “to win”…scary shit and every bullet point has been utilized thus far if you think about it…and the Pied Piper wasting more money is just another nail in the coffin for the Destroy America Presidency.
“And we were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party….”
Translation: Crap, we can’t blame the Republicans when it fails.
It took eight years of mismanagement by the previous administration, but more importantly it started back in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. Ever since, corporations have been rewarded by sending jobs overseas. The destruction of the middle class, which was the main pillar of our economy, is almost complete thanks to free market fundamentalism. Who is gonna be left to purchase anything? No what do we manufacture? Tractors, planes and tanks, not much else. We flip burgers for each other, and sell houses to each other. The republicans are the main culprits with their self-serving, discredited trickle-down theories, and Clinton jumped on their bandwagon too. So it’s not just about jump-starting the existing economy, but rebuliding it and restructuring it. Like the t-shirt from my old home town used to state, “If you’re in a hurry, you’re in the wrong place”.
It took eight years of mismanagement by the previous administration, but more importantly it started back in 1980 with Ronald Reagan.
Wow, really? It started with Reagan, huh? That’s interesting. Carter was a genius and had the country on the right track and that damn Reagan came in and f’d it all up. That’s what I thought too…….
Free Market Fundamentalism. Like all religions, it requires faith in facts not in evidence. It took 30 years to slowly gut this formerly prosperous economy, and now you and I are living with the consequences, unless you’re in that top 1% I keep reading about….
Joe:
It’s customary to employ some facts when making an argument which you intend others to take seriously rather than unfounded assertions, so some questions:
1. Did or did not the economy get better under Reagan from Carter? If not, how was it worse? (And please: facts, statistics, etc., that aren’t pulled from the usual leftist websites but more like something in the form of, say, the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
2. If the economy did get better under Reagan, how can you reasonably pin the blame for your hyperbolic commentary on him?
The economy may have gotten “better” in the very short run, although Reagan increased gov’t pending to then-unheard of levels, despite his rhetoric. But the whole Ronald Reagan/Milton Friedman school of thought – trickle down economics (let them eat cake), deregulation or fox-regulating-the-henhouse type schemes, the ludicrous idea that markets magically manage themselves for everyones benefit, destruction of labor unions – these seeds were planted back then and have now come to fruition. Look at the graphs of union membership vs household income – they mirror each other, steadily downhill despite the fact that most households now have two earners. Don’t talk to me about GDP, tell me how the fact that American household income has gone steadily down for thirty years is a good thing. Talk about real families…
I’m betting Joe was still in Pre-School when Reagan was in office. Dude, seriously?
Guess again. If you saw me in person you would call me “Sir” because of my age….
Joe,
Try googling “Decline of the middle class myth”. You may find it instructive. Your arguments are old, tired and demostrably incorrect. When the figures are corrected for houshold size and actual nuber of wage earners per household, there was a decided increase. This is particularly true if you factor in the divorce rate.
And in case you are too stuck in your MSNBC mindset to look, here is a link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101556.html
This guy seems to think it’s prudent to “spend our way out of a recession”:
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2008/IO+July+2008.htm
Goofypants20,
You see the date on that article? It’s two years old. I don’t buy a lot if what he says, but even so, what a difference a couple of years make.
So Joe’s response to an article flatly contradicting his claims amounts to, “I don’t believe it.” Awesome. Herding cats would be marginally easier than convincing Joe to ditch his unexamined “capitalism sucks” and actually look into the facts, so another tact (albeit likely still in vain) is in order. How about looking into the alternative one presumes he endorses.
Joe, since you claim “Free Market Fundamentalism… requires faith in facts not in evidence”, please demonstrate how massive government interventionism / direct control and vast deficit-spending as economic theories are any different. While you’re at it, you’ll need to explain away the tremendous failings thereof, including, but not limited to, the Soviet “economy” (hah), Great Depression policies, and the impacts of anti-redlining legislation and GSEs on the creation of the current economic problems. Also please elaborate on the way government directed our economy with such aplomb until Reagan radically set free the destructive forces of capitalism in 1980.
No, I won’t actually expect a substantive reply, but you could try surprising me. It’s kind of a win-win for me. Either you actually think about the absurdities you’re professing, or I get to be amused.
LOL…same old liberal spiel there joe. Was talking to a die hard socialist and obama fan at the coffee shop the other day and he blurted out, “at least he didnt shoot someone like cheney did”. Scratched my head on that one because it had no relevance at all to what we were discussing.
Joe, how about this. Go get yourself a fistful of credit cards and go try to spend yourself out of debt.
Scorch…
I was thinking the same thing. If I go rack up a buttload of debt then my home mortgage will automatically go down, magically!
I mean if it works for an Ivy League genius like the President then it must be the way for all Americans to reduce their debt load…
” Ever since, corporations have been rewarded by sending jobs overseas.”
Gosh, ever think it might be because the government had made it unprofitable for them to create jobs here?
Spade,
It’s called the race to the bottom. There will always be people in some country, Bangledesh, Indonesia willing to do the same job for less. In fact, we’re a victim of our own success – we did such a good job of creating democracies and free markets around the world after WWII, that we shouldn’t be surprised that there are many companies and countries willing to undercut us. Still, there should have been some protections against that giant sucking sound created because the only incentives for transnatinal corporations was to find the cheapest labor force with no loyalty to any particular country.
No joe, it’s not called the race to the bottom. It’s known as being competitive in the market place. Of course so many who applaud increased regulations on business in taxation, environmental and labor to name just a few do not seem to understand why their standard of living goes down when the price of products produced here goes up. Just a dog chasing it’s tail.
So, Scorched, if virtually all our manufacturing goes to places where they can produce for cheaper because of zero protections for workers or the environment, what kind of living standard can we expect? I don’t know many American want to work for 50¢ an hour with no benefits. A few years ago the canard was that as jobs fled overseas, we could rely on our huge (ha) advantage in information technology, research and ideas to stay on top. Since India, China and others have jumped into those fields, what is gonna be left? Flipping burgers for each other and selling houses to each other?
So, Joey, manufacturing would not have to move to other locations if they were not regulated out of the US. The stacking on of regulations is outrageous here in the US and that does not even include proposed laws that fail to pass. Your going off on your extremist comments again when speaking of 50 cent wages and no benefits. I believe the poverty level here in the US is anyone making $40,000 dollars a year or less. Damn it’s tough here in the good ol USA!
Scorch,
Read this article and you’ll see some of the reasons we’ve arrived at this sad place…
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/12-1
Another one, by a frickin’ Nobel prize winner in economics no less. Lets see any of you guys with similar credentials. Talks about the fantasy land most economic conservatives live in…
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/14-1