PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama has screwed our kids and grand kids


HonestChieffan
02-10-2012, 07:18 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/new-youth-normal-your-parents-basement


Welcome to Obama World. Must be Bush's fault.

alnorth
02-10-2012, 07:23 PM
Must be Bush's fault.

That is only partially correct. Alan Greenspan and both parties in congress also share a lot of the blame, its not fair to pin it ALL on Bush, even though he delivered us an economic smoking crater.

Guru
02-10-2012, 11:19 PM
That is only partially correct. Alan Greenspan and both parties in congress also share a lot of the blame, its not fair to pin it ALL on Bush, even though he delivered us an economic smoking crater.
That keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger and...........

alnorth
02-10-2012, 11:22 PM
That keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger and...........

funny, my 401k has been up a bunch the last couple years.

Guru
02-10-2012, 11:26 PM
funny, my 401k has been up a bunch the last couple years.

WE have stayed fairly conservative with ours. NO losses but no big gains.

alnorth
02-10-2012, 11:30 PM
WE have stayed fairly conservative with ours. NO losses but no big gains.

Since I'm still relatively young, I'm pretty aggressive. In a weird remarkable coincidence, I really did check my rate of return over the last 2 years earlier today, and I'm over 13% per year over that time span. I'm no stock-picker either, I've got a bunch of mutual funds in every sector. The recovery hasn't fully improved the unemployment rate yet, but American companies have been making a lot of money.

suzzer99
02-11-2012, 07:05 AM
HCF, you need meds. Seriously.

Fish
02-11-2012, 11:00 AM
I often wonder how much of HCF's day is actually dedicated to hating Obama? It must be a lot. I mean think of all the skimming of article titles, and the constant copy and pasting. It's impressive when you think about it.

patteeu
02-11-2012, 11:00 AM
funny, my 401k has been up a bunch the last couple years.

As if the stock market is the only measure of success for our economy. Obama is a horrible president, your 401(k) notwithstanding.

alnorth
02-11-2012, 11:07 AM
As if the stock market is the only measure of success for our economy. Obama is a horrible president, your 401(k) notwithstanding.

Must be Obama's fault.

Brock
02-11-2012, 11:13 AM
Your kids and grandkids voted him in, right?

Bump
02-11-2012, 11:25 AM
dude we are all screwed. In our lifetime, you will have to be pretty rich to afford food, gas, power and water.

Pioli Zombie
02-11-2012, 12:33 PM
I thought Steve Allen did that.

Pioli Zombie
02-11-2012, 12:34 PM
Or Morgan Freeman. Morgan Freeman screwed HIS grandkids at the very least

Ugly Duck
02-13-2012, 03:16 AM
its not fair to pin it ALL on Bush, even though he delivered us an economic smoking crater.

It wasn't all the Republis. Just the lion's share. In 2002 they were saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" (Dick Cheney) as they ramped up the debt. Now they point at Obama & squeal "Lookit the debt! Lookit the debt!"

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/280288/TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

tredadda
02-13-2012, 05:39 AM
So wait, according to the article, young people are struggling? I always though you could go to college and walk in to a six figure a year job? I guess the era where people started out struggling and then over time became a success (like my parents generation and their parents generation) is over and people should automatically be entitled to great paying jobs.

Amnorix
02-13-2012, 06:10 AM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/new-youth-normal-your-parents-basement


Welcome to Obama World. Must be Bush's fault.



Yeah, because the screwing only started in January 2009. Before that EVERYTHING WAS FINE, HONEST!

:rolleyes:

patteeu
02-13-2012, 07:56 AM
It wasn't all the Republis. Just the lion's share. In 2002 they were saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" (Dick Cheney) as they ramped up the debt. Now they point at Obama & squeal "Lookit the debt! Lookit the debt!"

That alleged quote is hopelessly out of context and the only person you actually know who said it is Paul O'Neill. I say "hopelessly" because even if it's an actual quote, O'Neill doesn't bother to provide the context. It's really pretty meaningless.

If Barack Obama wins re-election, he'll be proving that reckless, historically large, economy-stifling deficits don't matter when it comes to getting re-elected.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 07:58 AM
Yeah, because the screwing only started in January 2009. Before that EVERYTHING WAS FINE, HONEST!

:rolleyes:

It started a bit before that. I'd pinpoint the beginning as being just about the time when Obama's election seemed inevitable. :)

FishingRod
02-13-2012, 11:22 AM
It wasn't all the Republis. Just the lion's share. In 2002 they were saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" (Dick Cheney) as they ramped up the debt. Now they point at Obama & squeal "Lookit the debt! Lookit the debt!"

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/280288/TAX-CUTS-DEBT.jpg

It is certainly not all Obama’s fault or All Ws fault But is only fair to point out that the current administration has extended these cuts making them as much the Obama tax cuts as the Bush ones. You quote above is indeed valid the Reps did a piss poor job of not spending more than was acceptable. Likewise I have said the following many times and really never got an honest response from an Obama supporter. If Bush was such a crappy president (and I agree he was). Why does not the current administrations continuation and expansion of virtually everything Bush did, make the Liberal minded folks outraged with the current administration? He is W-2. Or W x 2. Just because he is a democrat does not make him suck less.

FD
02-13-2012, 12:55 PM
If Barack Obama wins re-election, he'll be proving that reckless, historically large, economy-stifling deficits don't matter when it comes to getting re-elected.

How are the deficits stifling the economy?

vailpass
02-13-2012, 12:57 PM
funny, my 401k has been up a bunch the last couple years.

Uh huh.
This is true everywhere. People all around the land are saying "man my retirement fund has been doing great for the past couple of years".
tool.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 01:01 PM
How are the deficits stifling the economy?

By creating the anticipation of large tax increases in our near future. People stop spending their money because they expect to get hammered by the response of government to it's historically high debt creation.

FD
02-13-2012, 01:03 PM
By creating the anticipation of large tax increases in our near future. People stop spending their money because they expect to get hammered by the response of government to it's historically high debt creation.

The problem there isn't the level of deficit, though, its the level of spending. Conditional on the level of spending, its clearly better for the economy to be running deficits right now.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 01:08 PM
The problem there isn't the level of deficit, though, its the level of spending. Conditional on the level of spending, its clearly better for the economy to be running deficits right now.

Obama's spending is what I was really talking about. It's not like I would have been fine with his dramatic increase in spending if only he'd have accompanied it with huge tax increases. I stand corrected on my careless language.

FD
02-13-2012, 01:10 PM
Obama's spending is what I was really talking about. It's not like I would have been fine with his dramatic increase in spending if only he'd have accompanied it with huge tax increases. I stand corrected on my careless language.

Its ok. Just try to think before you post next time. :evil:

banyon
02-13-2012, 07:56 PM
That alleged quote is hopelessly out of context and the only person you actually know who said it is Paul O'Neill. I say "hopelessly" because even if it's an actual quote, O'Neill doesn't bother to provide the context. It's really pretty meaningless.

If Barack Obama wins re-election, he'll be proving that reckless, historically large, economy-stifling deficits don't matter when it comes to getting re-elected.

What was the context?

patteeu
02-13-2012, 07:59 PM
What was the context?

No one knows. No one knows whether he even really said it. All we know is that Paul O'Neill claimed he said it in his book. That's why it's such a worthless criticism.

banyon
02-13-2012, 08:04 PM
No one knows. No one knows whether he even really said it. All we know is that Paul O'Neill claimed he said it in his book. That's why it's such a worthless criticism.

Does Cheney know if he said it?

FD
02-13-2012, 08:08 PM
What was the context?

My understanding is that it was a discussion limited to the relationship between deficits and US borrowing costs (Treasury rates.) Reagan showed deficits didn't matter because interest rates fell significantly from 1980 to 1992 while the US was running large deficits. He was correct, too. Rates also fell or stayed constant throughout the Bush administration even during the years with high deficits.

People have blown this statement way out of proportion. It was originally addressing a narrow point, and he was correct on that point.

Bowser
02-13-2012, 08:11 PM
Great. My daughter just conquered her fear of Reaganomics. Now this.

banyon
02-13-2012, 08:13 PM
My understanding is that it was a discussion limited to the relationship between deficits and US borrowing costs (Treasury rates.) Reagan showed deficits didn't matter because interest rates fell significantly from 1980 to 1992 while the US was running large deficits. He was correct, too. Rates also fell or stayed constant throughout the Bush administration even during the years with high deficits.

People have blown this statement way out of proportion. It was originally addressing a narrow point, and he was correct on that point.

Wait, hang on... patteeu says he may not have even said it.

FD
02-13-2012, 08:15 PM
Wait, hang on... patteeu says he may not have even said it.

Well, its been over a decade so who knows. I recall reading about this in the WSJ at the time but wsj.com wont let me search back that far. I'm pretty sure I'm remembering this right and the quote has been badly distorted.

dirk digler
02-13-2012, 08:18 PM
Pat is not telling the truth Cheney admits he said it.

Just from last year

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577042504204424714.html

MR. GIGOT: You were famously quoted in the early part of the Bush administration as saying that deficits don't matter. That's when debt as a share of GDP was about 40% or so, and deficits were about 4% of GDP. Now it's 9% of GDP as a deficit and closer to 70% of debt as a share of GDP. Do deficits matter more now?

MR. CHENEY: I think it's important to put that comment in context. I had, during my 10 years in the House, one of the most conservative voting records. I think my conservative credentials are well-established, in terms of fiscal policy. But this was in the early days of the administration. I was referring to the beginning of the Reagan administration, when he simultaneously cut taxes, reduced revenue and increased defense spending.

FD
02-13-2012, 08:22 PM
Someone should delete all of pat's posts until he admits he is a liar.

dirk digler
02-13-2012, 08:28 PM
Someone should delete all of pat's posts until he admits he is a liar.

LMAO

Paging Kyle

patteeu
02-13-2012, 08:31 PM
Pat is not telling the truth Cheney admits he said it.

Just from last year

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577042504204424714.html

MR. GIGOT: You were famously quoted in the early part of the Bush administration as saying that deficits don't matter. That's when debt as a share of GDP was about 40% or so, and deficits were about 4% of GDP. Now it's 9% of GDP as a deficit and closer to 70% of debt as a share of GDP. Do deficits matter more now?

MR. CHENEY: I think it's important to put that comment in context. I had, during my 10 years in the House, one of the most conservative voting records. I think my conservative credentials are well-established, in terms of fiscal policy. But this was in the early days of the administration. I was referring to the beginning of the Reagan administration, when he simultaneously cut taxes, reduced revenue and increased defense spending.

Well, I was telling the truth as I knew it. I wasn't aware of Cheney's explanation. I was just aware of the fact that it has been repeated by Cheney critics since it appeared in O'Neill's book without any journalistic verification.

I think Forward Dante's explanation, whether completely accurate or not, shows why the context means everything, which is the more important point (as opposed to whether or not those words passed his lips or not).

patteeu
02-13-2012, 08:32 PM
Someone should delete all of pat's posts until he admits he is a liar.

LMAO

banyon
02-13-2012, 08:33 PM
Pat is not telling the truth Cheney admits he said it.

Just from last year

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577042504204424714.html

MR. GIGOT: You were famously quoted in the early part of the Bush administration as saying that deficits don't matter. That's when debt as a share of GDP was about 40% or so, and deficits were about 4% of GDP. Now it's 9% of GDP as a deficit and closer to 70% of debt as a share of GDP. Do deficits matter more now?

MR. CHENEY: I think it's important to put that comment in context. I had, during my 10 years in the House, one of the most conservative voting records. I think my conservative credentials are well-established, in terms of fiscal policy. But this was in the early days of the administration. I was referring to the beginning of the Reagan administration, when he simultaneously cut taxes, reduced revenue and increased defense spending.

Dang man, you stole my punchline. :D I was waiting for pat to re-deny it.

dirk digler
02-13-2012, 08:39 PM
Well, I was telling the truth as I knew it. I wasn't aware of Cheney's explanation. I was just aware of the fact that it has been repeated by Cheney critics since it appeared in O'Neill's book without any journalistic verification.

I think Forward Dante's explanation, whether completely accurate or not, shows why the context means everything, which is the more important point (as opposed to whether or not those words passed his lips or not).

I am actually shocked you have conceded so easy that isn't like you :p


And sorry Banyon for ruining your setup if I would have known I would have stayed out of it :D

banyon
02-13-2012, 08:41 PM
Well, I was telling the truth as I knew it. I wasn't aware of Cheney's explanation. I was just aware of the fact that it has been repeated by Cheney critics since it appeared in O'Neill's book without any journalistic verification.

I think Forward Dante's explanation, whether completely accurate or not, shows why the context means everything, which is the more important point (as opposed to whether or not those words passed his lips or not).

So, are you available to give lessons to austinchief and orange?

Amnorix
02-14-2012, 08:17 AM
By creating the anticipation of large tax increases in our near future. People stop spending their money because they expect to get hammered by the response of government to it's historically high debt creation.


Why weren't these deficits a problem during a Republican administration?

Dave Lane
02-14-2012, 08:19 AM
HCF, you need meds. Seriously.

I assumed it was crack as a minimum.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 08:29 AM
Why weren't these deficits a problem during a Republican administration?

We didn't have these deficits during a Republican administration.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2012, 08:54 AM
Here is $4billion planned to be pissed away....

(CNSNews.com) – The State Department budget request for fiscal year 2013 includes $4.1 billion for contributions to the United Nations and other international bodies. Among the intended recipients is the U.N’s cultural agency, which lost U.S. funding in FY2012 after it became the first U.N. agency to grant full membership to “Palestine.”

The budget request released Monday includes $79 million for the Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

UNESCO’s funding was cut last November in line with U.S. legislation that denies funds to any U.N. body “which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.”

Thomas Nides, the State Department’s deputy secretary for management and resources, told a briefing Monday that President Obama wanted waiver authority that would allow the U.S. to continue supporting UNESCO in the future.

“We have put the money in the budget, realizing that we’re not going to be able to spend the money unless we get the waiver – and we have made it clear to the Congress we’d like a waiver,” he said.

Senior Republicans warned the administration last fall not to look for ways around the law.

“Any effort to walk back U.S. law would send the damaging message that the U.S. will keep paying for U.N. bodies no matter what they do,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said at the time.

Amnorix
02-14-2012, 09:14 AM
We didn't have these deficits during a Republican administration.


True. Our then-record-setting-deficits were record-setting but not as record-setting as the current deficits.

Color me unimpressed.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2012, 09:16 AM
True. Our then-record-setting-deficits were record-setting but not as record-setting as the current deficits.

Color me unimpressed.


So, just as a point of reference, are the current deficits an issue for you?

Ugly Duck
02-15-2012, 12:20 AM
Pat is not telling the truth Cheney admits he said it.

Well, there's a surprise. Deficit spending, the hallmark of Reaganomic philosophy & the demonstrated record of Republi stewardship, was roundly hailed by Republis until President Obama took over. Now, all of a sudden, the very same folks that praised it are shrieking that its the worst thing in the world. The President has been working to correct the wrongs of the Republi policies & finally making some headway against Republi obstruction. It'll start getting better as long as we don't let the Republis back into power to screw it all up again.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/248944-galleryV9-nnhb.jpg

Ugly Duck
02-15-2012, 12:34 AM
Looks like folks aren't buying all the "Obama is Stalin" crap that the HonestChiefsFans of the world are trying to feed them... Latest poll of registered voters

Obama approval is still climbing with economic recovery: Approve 50%, disapprove 43%

Obama continues to surge in election polls:
Obama 48%, Romney 42%
Obama 49%, Santorum 41%
Obama 50%, Paul 39%
Obama 54%, Gingrich 36%

patteeu
02-15-2012, 07:01 AM
Well, there's a surprise. Deficit spending, the hallmark of Reaganomic philosophy & the demonstrated record of Republi stewardship, was roundly hailed by Republis until President Obama took over. Now, all of a sudden, the very same folks that praised it are shrieking that its the worst thing in the world. The President has been working to correct the wrongs of the Republi policies & finally making some headway against Republi obstruction. It'll start getting better as long as we don't let the Republis back into power to screw it all up again.


You've got quite an imagination.