President Obama PLANNED Russia-Syria Situation?

[josephpalazzo]

Fact: The last Great Depression lasted 16 years, from 1929 to 1945
This one, called the Great Recession,  lasted, 18 months.

Fact: The Great Depression had an unemployment rate over 20%. In this Great Recession, it never went over 10%.

These are facts, not opinions. But you are so afraid to give the black guy in the oval office credit that you are will go to great lengths to demean him.

The Obama administration predicted that without the bailout unemployment would reach over 8% and that would be the end of the world.  So they passed it, and unemployment went straight to 9.5% and stayed higher than their doomsday predictions about the economy without the bailout.  The "recovery" has been on Wall street alone.

When you deal with Congress, any president has to sell his plan, and like anything else, you need to bend the truth. The important thing is that we didn't get to 20%. But remove the bailouts, the stimulus package, and we would have gotten there or very near that. OTOH, had Obama been allowed by Congress to pass a second stimulus, the recovery would have happened a lot faster. Now with the sequestration, the recovery is still going on but at a much slower pace. You can thank your nutjobs in the GOP for that.

[josephpalazzo]

Your list is still bullshit spin no matter how many times you link it.  You sound like you're angling for Jay Carney's job or something.

You're entitled to your opinion but the facts show that you are dead wrong.

[Hydra009]

Could be, just maybe, we at this level, judging or no, don't have the complete picture.

This x1000.

[The Whit]

When you deal with Congress, any president has to sell his plan, and like anything else, you need to bend the truth. The important thing is that we didn't get to 20%. But remove the bailouts, the stimulus package, and we would have gotten there or very near that. OTOH, had Obama been allowed by Congress to pass a second stimulus, the recovery would have happened a lot faster. Now with the sequestration, the recovery is still going on but at a much slower pace. You can thank your nutjobs in the GOP for that.

LOL the sequestration is slowing the economy!  It was a cut of less than 40 billion in a budget of over 3 TRILLION.  HA!  That was a fucking paper cut!

PLEASE tell me how the bailout money saved the economy.  I'd love to know how out of sync with reality you are.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your list is still bullshit spin no matter how many times you link it.  You sound like you're angling for Jay Carney's job or something.

You're entitled to your opinion but the facts show that you are dead wrong.

On the other hand, there are the facts that I added that you ignored.

[josephpalazzo]

When you deal with Congress, any president has to sell his plan, and like anything else, you need to bend the truth. The important thing is that we didn't get to 20%. But remove the bailouts, the stimulus package, and we would have gotten there or very near that. OTOH, had Obama been allowed by Congress to pass a second stimulus, the recovery would have happened a lot faster. Now with the sequestration, the recovery is still going on but at a much slower pace. You can thank your nutjobs in the GOP for that.

LOL the sequestration is slowing the economy!  It was a cut of less than 40 billion in a budget of over 3 TRILLION.  HA!  That was a fucking paper cut!

Get your facts straightened out. The sequestration cut $84.5B in fiscal 2013, since Jan 1st of this year. There was an additional $21B cut at the end of fiscal 2012 - this taking place after the summer showdown by the GOP to shut down the government. So cumulative cuts are of the order of $100B. What the economy needs in order to get traction is stimulus, not contraction. The result is what we see now, a very slow recovery, and this is due thankfully to Bernanke's monetary policies of QE's. Otherwise the economy would be tanking.

PLEASE tell me how the bailout money saved the economy.  I'd love to know how out of sync with reality you are.

Auto bailout saved more than 1 million jobs - http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/g ... tudy-says/

[The Whit]

Get your facts straightened out. The sequestration cut $84.5B in fiscal 2013, since Jan 1st of this year. There was an additional $21B cut at the end of fiscal 2012 - this taking place after the summer showdown by the GOP to shut down the government. So cumulative cuts are of the order of $100B. What the economy needs in order to get traction is stimulus, not contraction. The result is what we see now, a very slow recovery, and this is due thankfully to Bernanke's monetary policies of QE's. Otherwise the economy would be tanking.

OMG they cut 3% of the budget the world is going to end!  Forget the national debt skyrocketing to 17 Trillion, an annual budget deficit of at or near a trillion dollars, trillions more in unfunded liabilities which include SS (that I'll never draw a penny from), what we need is to spend even more money we don't have.  Where in the hell is this money coming from?  

Auto bailout saved more than 1 million jobs - http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/g ... tudy-says/

Uh huh.

At the rough pricetag of $80 billion in government assistance, each job CAR said was saved during the last two years cost taxpayers nearly $57,000.

But it was the next paragraph that really confused the shit out of me.

...CAR figures Washington only needs to recoup $38 billion more on the taxpayer bailouts to "achieve a two-year break-even." Put another way, if the Treasury recovers 57 cents on the dollar or more in IPOs of GM and Chrysler, "the public will have been made full whole," CAR concluded.

So, what they're saying is if they get just over half of what they put in they'll break even?  O.o

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009 ... y-chrysler

The report said that a $5.4 billion portion of the $10.5 billion owed by Chrysler is "highly unlikely" to be repaid, while full recovery of the $50 billion sunk into GM would require the company's stock to reach unprecedented heights.

What a great investment that was.  Gotta love GM's rosey out look:

We are confident that we will repay our nation's support because we are a company with less debt, a stronger balance sheet, a winning product portfolio and the right size to match today's market realities

And Mitt Romney was sure he was going to be president.  I'd hope they're doing better after getting billions of dollars they didn't earn.

Maybe if the government hadn't pushed home ownership so hard the housing market wouldn't have bubbled and we wouldn't have had the collapse in the first place.  Too much credit caused the collapse in 1929 and 2007, and you're suggesting that the solution is EVEN MORE CREDIT!?

The "recovery" we've seen is just another bubble being inflated by government subsidies.  This is obvious by the rate of inflation, the stock market, and the high unemployment rate.

[josephpalazzo]

Get your facts straightened out. The sequestration cut $84.5B in fiscal 2013, since Jan 1st of this year. There was an additional $21B cut at the end of fiscal 2012 - this taking place after the summer showdown by the GOP to shut down the government. So cumulative cuts are of the order of $100B. What the economy needs in order to get traction is stimulus, not contraction. The result is what we see now, a very slow recovery, and this is due thankfully to Bernanke's monetary policies of QE's. Otherwise the economy would be tanking.

OMG they cut 3% of the budget the world is going to end!  

Are you drunk? Who said the world would end? You should stop watching Fox News.

And $100B is nothing to sneeze at. Such cuts represent well over a million jobs. The next thing you would complain about is that the unemployment is too high.

Like I said before, according to your racist logic, Obama is damned if he spends to save jobs, and he is damned if he cuts and puts millions of American workers out of a job.

You're showing your true colors.

As to the GM bailout, it cost $12B to save 1 million jobs, which is a bargain taking into account that these people would have not only lost their jobs, but their houses, their kids education fund and their pension, not to mention their health plan. Without the bailout, the cost would have been a lot higher.

[The Whit]

And $100B is nothing to sneeze at. Such cuts represent well over a million jobs.

No, it doesn't.  If that were the case, and every job costed the same 57K the auto industry jobs cost us the 3.5 trillion the government spends should mean that the feds employ over 61 million people, but they don't.  They employ 4.4 million.  

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/

Even IF they DID employ 61 million people, they are employed AT THE EXPENSE of the other 240 million private sector workers.  That federal money goes to the same wall street bankers and brokers as well as the power hungry military industrial complex.  Funny how you point the finger at the republicans for pandering to these people while but when your savior dumps billions of public dollars into their pockets it's for the good of the economy.

The next thing you would complain about is that the unemployment is too high.

High unemployment is a good thing to you.  Got it.

Like I said before, according to your racist logic, Obama is damned if he spends to save jobs, and he is damned if he cuts and puts millions of Americans workers out of a job.

No, he'd be a fuckin hero if he cut back on spending in my eyes.  The 100 billion dollar sequester is as ridiculous as a 500lb person getting liposuction to remove 10 pounds.  SS and Medicare/Medicaid take almost ALL of the federal revenue.  That's where the restructuring has to be made.

You're showing your true colors.

They're a hell of a lot brighter than yours, considering you only see in black and white.

[josephpalazzo]

And $100B is nothing to sneeze at. Such cuts represent well over a million jobs.

No, it doesn't.  If that were the case, and every job costed the same 57K the auto industry jobs cost us the 3.5 trillion the government spends should mean that the feds employ over 61 million people, but they don't.  They employ 4.4 million.  

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/

Even IF they DID employ 61 million people, they are employed AT THE EXPENSE of the other 240 million private sector workers.  That federal money goes to the same wall street bankers and brokers as well as the power hungry military industrial complex.  Funny how you point the finger at the republicans for pandering to these people while but when your savior dumps billions of public dollars into their pockets it's for the good of the economy.

It doesn't work that way. When the government spends, it's not only in salaries for those who work for the government, it's also money it spends in buying stuff, like jet planes from Boeing. If the government cuts there, no government employees would lose their jobs, but ask those who work at Boeing. So no, $3.5 trillion that the government spends  does not translate into only GOVERNMENT JOBS.

Try again.  

The next thing you would complain about is that the unemployment is too high.

High unemployment is a good thing to you.  Got it.

No, but you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.

Like I said before, according to your racist logic, Obama is damned if he spends to save jobs, and he is damned if he cuts and puts millions of Americans workers out of a job.

No, he'd be a fuckin hero if he cut back on spending in my eyes.  The 100 billion dollar sequester is as ridiculous as a 500lb person getting liposuction to remove 10 pounds.  SS and Medicare/Medicaid take almost ALL of the federal revenue.  That's where the restructuring has to be made.

Like I said, you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.

You're showing your true colors.

They're a hell of a lot brighter than yours, considering you only see in black and white.

No, I see facts, you watch Fox News.

[The Whit]

It doesn't work that way. When the government spends, it's not only in salaries for those who work for the government, it's also money it spends in buying stuff, like jet planes from Boeing. If the government cuts there, no government employees would lose their jobs, but ask those who work at Boeing. So no, $3.5 trillion that the government spends  does not translate into only GOVERNMENT JOBS.

Try again.  

Government money is taken from the private sector, so any money the government spends on funding JSFs and a war in Afghanistan he said we'd be out of 5 years ago is money the rest of us CAN'T use to grow the economy.  Any jobs created by the government come at the expense of the economy.  The only jobs the government should fund are jobs that help the economy like the judicial branch, law enforcement, and infrastructure.

No, but you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.

Yeah, well the cotton gin put hundreds of thousands out of work but you wouldn't argue that we should destroy all the machines and go back to hand filtering would you?  Do you want to pick seeds out of cotton strands for 12+ hours a day while being paid just enough to afford food for tomorrow and a shack to sleep in?  That would put HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people to work, but IT'S NOT ECONOMIC GROWTH!

Like I said, you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.

If it's a job that doesn't need to be done.  I'd rather NOT pay someone to waste their time strip searching 90 year old wheelchair bound women at the fucking airport, thank you VERY MUCH.

No, I see facts, you watch Fox News.

No, I don't and no matter how many times you assert something it doesn't magically become true.  If that were the case god would exist and money would grow on trees (thereby making it worthless).

[josephpalazzo]

It doesn't work that way. When the government spends, it's not only in salaries for those who work for the government, it's also money it spends in buying stuff, like jet planes from Boeing. If the government cuts there, no government employees would lose their jobs, but ask those who work at Boeing. So no, $3.5 trillion that the government spends  does not translate into only GOVERNMENT JOBS.

Try again.  

Government money is taken from the private sector, so any money the government spends on funding JSFs and a war in Afghanistan he said we'd be out of 5 years ago is money the rest of us CAN'T use to grow the economy.  Any jobs created by the government come at the expense of the economy.  The only jobs the government should fund are jobs that help the economy like the judicial branch, law enforcement, and infrastructure.

Where have you been? Big corporations are right now sitting on trillions of dollars, and they aren't hiring anyone. Your moto is: put more money into the private sector, which will only enrich the top 1%, not creating a single job, and screw everybody else.

No, but you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.

Yeah, well the cotton gin put hundreds of thousands out of work but you wouldn't argue that we should destroy all the machines and go back to hand filtering would you?  Do you want to pick seeds out of cotton strands for 12+ hours a day while being paid just enough to afford food for tomorrow and a shack to sleep in?  That would put HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people to work, but IT'S NOT ECONOMIC GROWTH!

That is totally irrelevant as the auto industry is going to be around for quite a while.

Like I said, you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.

If it's a job that doesn't need to be done.  I'd rather NOT pay someone to waste their time strip searching 90 year old wheelchair bound women at the fucking airport, thank you VERY MUCH.

Sure, and according to your insane logic, leave the terrorists complete freedom to kill innocent people. Great thinking!

No, I see facts, you watch Fox News.

No, I don't and no matter how many times you assert something it doesn't magically become true.  If that were the case god would exist and money would grow on trees (thereby making it worthless).

Since you are using the same insane logic, the same racist arguments, the same distorted facts that anyone would find on Fox News, then I'm willing to bet that you do watch Fox News.

[The Whit]

Where have you been? Big corporations are right now sitting on trillions of dollars, and they aren't hiring anyone.

Trillions of dollars the government gave them.

Your moto is: put more money into the private sector, which will only enrich the top 1%, not creating a single job, and screw everybody else.

No, it's not.  I didn't expect to have a reasonable conversation but, jeebuz dude, do you have reading comprehension?  The only people I said we should have screwed were the big businesses who invested incorrectly and cause the economic collapse in the first place by letting them reap what they sew.  You're the one calling for us to pour billions into the pockets of the 1% in the hopes they might let a few people keep jobs that wouldn't have been around if they weren't investing improperly anyway.  Tell me, how has Warren Buffet done during this recovery compared to the average worker?

No, but you are definitely in favor in putting millions of Americans out of a job.

I'm for us not wasting peoples time by making them do jobs they don't need to do, especially if it takes tax funds to do so.  These people will not be permanently unemployed.  Cutting back labor regulations and payroll taxes would have a far greater beneficial effect on unemployment.

That is totally irrelevant as the auto industry is going to be around for quite a while.

The auto industry is around because of the cotton gin you dim-wit.  The cotton gin freed up thousands of people to do other things and made cotton much cheaper, making it more affordable for everyone.  Machines taking the jobs of humans has had this effect in every industry.  The reason you don't have to farm all day to make a living is because we made a machine that took that job for you.  So the next time you think job loss is an inherently bad thing I want you to think about why it is you're not harvesting wheat by hand so you can eat tonight.

Sure, and according to your insane logic, leave the terrorists complete freedom to kill innocent people. Great thinking!

Yeah, because they stopped the underwear bomber!  AMIRITE!?!?!?!

Since you are using the same insane logic, the same racist arguments, the same distorted facts that anyone would find on Fox News, then I'm willing to bet that you do watch Fox News.

Name one time I ever brought up race?  The funny thing about it is you fill the Fox News propaganda stereotype for Liberal, and that's pretty fuckin' scary.

[LikelyToBreak]

Wow! I now know I'm a racist, atheistic, sexist pig who sold out his own race.  Probably a traitor and terrorist too.  Let's see what other categories I fall into, probably a Nazi Commie, dumb ass red-neck, trailer park scum, male chauvinist pig, uneducated dimwit, and a worthless SSI recipient.  Then the Democrats wonder why I don't like them.  When they call me names and then tell me what I am really thinking, I find it annoying.  My fault no doubt.  Had I been born to different parents then maybe I could be of use to them, and then they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my existence.  

Oh well, carry on with the name calling.  It seems to be working.

[josephpalazzo]

Where have you been? Big corporations are right now sitting on trillions of dollars, and they aren't hiring anyone.

Trillions of dollars the government gave them.

Where did you get that? Oh wait, from Fox News. For your info: the government never gave trillions. There was a bailout to the auto industry, a recovery package for the banks, and a stimulus package, of which most of the money went directly to the states to balance their budgets.  

Your moto is: put more money into the private sector, which will only enrich the top 1%, not creating a single job, and screw everybody else.

No, it's not.  I didn't expect to have a reasonable conversation but, jeebuz dude, do you have reading comprehension?  The only people I said we should have screwed were the big businesses who invested incorrectly and cause the economic collapse in the first place by letting them reap what they sew.  

The problem with that logic is that millions of workers in the auto industry, who had little say in the management of that industry, would have lost their jobs, their houses, their retirement funds, their health insurance. If you want to punish someone, punish the CEO's who made the bad decisions. Obama wisely saw through this and correctly saved millions of jobs for those workers. But you don't give a damn, you want your money, and screw everybody else.

You're the one calling for us to pour billions into the pockets of the 1% in the hopes they might let a few people keep jobs that wouldn't have been around if they weren't investing improperly anyway.

No, I'm on the side of the working class, asshole.

That is totally irrelevant as the auto industry is going to be around for quite a while.

The auto industry is around because of the cotton gin you dim-wit.  The cotton gin freed up thousands of people to do other things and made cotton much cheaper, making it more affordable for everyone.  Machines taking the jobs of humans has had this effect in every industry.  The reason you don't have to farm all day to make a living is because we made a machine that took that job for you.  So the next time you think job loss is an inherently bad thing I want you to think about why it is you're not harvesting wheat by hand so you can eat tonight.

Like I said, totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Sure, and according to your insane logic, leave the terrorists complete freedom to kill innocent people. Great thinking!

Yeah, because they stopped the underwear bomber!  AMIRITE!?!?!?!

Oh, according to you, 9/11 never happened??? Did Fox News tell you that too?

Since you are using the same insane logic, the same racist arguments, the same distorted facts that anyone would find on Fox News, then I'm willing to bet that you do watch Fox News.

Name one time I ever brought up race?  The funny thing about it is you fill the Fox News propaganda stereotype for Liberal, and that's pretty fuckin' scary.

You finally admit that you watch Fox News, oh wow! As to bring up the race issue, you didn't have to, everything you've been saying is what racists have been saying about Obama: the black guy in the oval office can't do nothing right.