Is Barack Hussien Obama purposely trying to destroy the US economy?

[Devastatin Dave]

Simple question...
I believe he is in order to bring forth a socialist state, like the Utopian ones all his radical professors, terrorist buddies, and left wing parents have preached and ingrained into him his entire life. A tiger can't change his stripes. While the media is too busy masterbating to his speaches and man-boob pics, will anyone have the testicular fortitude to shine the light on this complete act of treason of our Manchurian leader?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

While the media is too busy masterbating to his speaches and man-boob picks, will anyone have the testicular fortitude to shine the light on this complete act of treason of our Manchurian leader?

Surely you are up to the task Dave!

[Strike For The South]

I believe, like Bush he is a principled man. It just so happens his principles are wrong. Unfortunately the sheeple have spoken.

A fellow preacher explains it much better than me.

[Devastatin Dave]

I believe, like Bush he is a principled man. It just so happens his principles are wrong. Unfortunately the sheeple have spoken.

A fellow preacher explains it much better than me.

This guy is my favorite preacher...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

[Xiahou]

This guy is my favorite preacher...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

Here's mine for now.

[Strike For The South]

This guy is my favorite preacher...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

Hmmm this is an interesting development. Obama and I like tits. Grounds for a relationship I say.

[Reverend Joe]

*sigh*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBMltWg2RQ

[Devastatin Dave]

*sigh*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBMltWg2RQ

I've got the biggest balls of them all!!!

[CrossLOPER]

While the media is too busy masterbating to his speaches and man-boob picks, will anyone have the testicular fortitude to shine the light on this complete act of treason of our Manchurian leader?

No. Enjoy your socialism.

[Husar]

I don't think he's trying to destroy anything but I still think the stimulus package is a bad idea, except the part with the high-speed trains of course, but they could do that without doing the rest.

[Strike For The South]

I don't think he's trying to destroy anything but I still think the stimulus package is a bad idea, except the part with the high-speed trains of course, but they could do that without doing the rest.

Is this the one thing stopping you from visiting me?

[Devastatin Dave]

I don't think he's trying to destroy anything but I still think the stimulus package is a bad idea, except the part with the high-speed trains of course, but they could do that without doing the rest.

High speed trains? Why? America is a big place and we use cars here. Its just not practical and considering how crappy Amtrak does, why continue a failed course. The "stimulus" is nothing more than a pay-off to his homies at Acorn and the Union bosses. It is also a garantee to hurt the economy to a point where the only thing to survive will be the government which again brings me to the fact that it is his purpose to destroy our way of life in order to bring his socialist agenda to the masses. Read his books, look up his record. Its all there, its just the media was too busy digging through Sarah Palins garbage can to report the truth about this fraud.

[KukriKhan]

Is Barack Hussien Obama purposely trying to destroy the US economy?

No.

As much as I like to indulge in conspiracy theories, I refuse to believe that we (yes, "we", regardless of whomever you personally voted for; we, the American electorate) could or would elect a guy who intended to permanently harm the country. We cannot be that stupid, as a people.

I admit: it's possible. But history stands against the proposition.

I, personally, would have made some different decisions than the ones POTUS has made this past month, but he has access to a helluva lotta more info than I have. I just hope he's as smart as he thinks he is.

If it turns out that he's not: he's no worse than W, yes? If it turns out he intends harm, pitchforks and torches shall appear. Me leading the California Brigade.

[Devastatin Dave]

No.

As much as I like to indulge in conspiracy theories, I refuse to believe that we (yes, "we", regardless of whomever you personally voted for; we, the American electorate) could or would elect a guy who intended to permanently harm the country. We cannot be that stupid, as a people.

I admit: it's possible. But history stands against the proposition.

I, personally, would have made some different decisions than the ones POTUS has made this past month, but he has access to a helluva lotta more info than I have. I just hope he's as smart as he thinks he is.

If it turns out that he's not: he's no worse than W, yes? If it turns out he intends harm, pitchforks and torches shall appear. Me leading the California Brigade.

I don't know my friend, it would appear that there are more and more people dependent on the government and Mr Hussien Obama promised them the world wrapped up nicely in government wrapping paper. The Have Nots outnumber the Haves and the Do nothings are suffacating the Do's. The electorate has chaged and this country will be unrecognizable in 2 or 3 years. Pitch forks and torches will probably be the only things we'll have left once the 2nd ammendment is scrubbed. I truelly belive that he is going to do as much harm to the fundamentals of our country. As Rohm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crises go to waste". Well, they are truelly taking advantage of this one.

Obama is truelly a disciple of Saul Alinsky, and we are now seeing first hand his teachings...

[Spino]

High speed trains? Why? America is a big place and we use cars here. Its just not practical and considering how crappy Amtrak does, why continue a failed course. The "stimulus" is nothing more than a pay-off to his homies at Acorn and the Union bosses. It is also a garantee to hurt the economy to a point where the only thing to survive will be the government which again brings me to the fact that it is his purpose to destroy our way of life in order to bring his socialist agenda to the masses. Read his books, look up his record. Its all there, its just the media was too busy digging through Sarah Palins garbage can to report the truth about this fraud.

Hey, I want high speed trains here... and lots of them... including them magical ones that levitate over the track like some genie put the whammy on 'em. But... I don't want the gummint to build n' run 'em!

Seriously, why the hell can't we open competitive bidding and regional contracts like we did during the 19th century when we were first laying track all across the country?

[CrossLOPER]

Seriously, why the hell can't we open competitive bidding and regional contracts like we did during the 19th century when we were first laying track all across the country?

No profit in such a thing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Simple question...
I believe he is in order to bring forth a socialist state, like the Utopian ones all his radical professors, terrorist buddies, and left wing parents have preached and ingrained into him his entire life. A tiger can't change his stripes. While the media is too busy masterbating to his speaches and man-boob pics, will anyone have the testicular fortitude to shine the light on this complete act of treason of our Manchurian leader?

No.

Like Kukri, I don't think he wants to or is trying to destroy the economy.

His actions may cause serious harm, though. We'll see.

Still, for monumentally stupid bill signed of the last year, I think Bush has won.

CR

[Brenus]

How can he destroy ruins?
Bush put US so low, so deep in debts that it is difficult to do worst...
The US nationalisation run under Bush probably made Lenine red of shame for not doing so much...
The so-call free market and its "regulation" just failled so miserably than something else have to be tried.
If you want blame somebody for the disaster, blame the last two administrations which happened to be Bush ones, and the free marketeers who just destroy and pillage your country...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Dave (and anyone else who feels similarly) do you have suggestions about how this economic crisis should be managed which don't involve a stimulus package?

I may not agree with the detail of your post, but I am deeply mistrustful of these worldwide spending sprees. However, I recognise that the global economy is predicated on the infinite growth of consumerism, which means (to this layman) finding ways to spend again without limit. Thus the stimuli.

To me, the principle of measured stewardship and careful, controlled (yes, conservative) incremental growth based in manufacturing, agriculture and societal cohesion was always the right path, and should be for the future. This however, means radical changes to the goals for our standard of living and, for example, the removal of corporate rights and regulation of size (so that there is never again a company "too big to fail" which status removes the benefit of market forces).

I haven't seen any coherent strategies from other parties (here at least - I am not so familiar with the intricacies of US politics) which do not rely on some sort of stimulus package, however dandied up with bows of the appropriate colour.

I'd be interested in any credible sources.

[naut]

Simple inquiry, is it the fact money is being given out, or to whom the money is going to that concerns you?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Dave (and anyone else who feels similarly) do you have suggestions about how this economic crisis should be managed which don't involve a stimulus package?

Cut taxes to stimulate investment - capital spending and corporate income taxes. This and other measures to increase incentives to invest. I am skeptical of the benefits of income tax cuts to middle and lower class brackets.

Ensure credit in the banks by giving out the money with explicit contracts and guarantees from the banks that they would open the lines of credit.

I am unconvinced huge amounts of money spent by the government outside of this will do much good. It didn't in the US in the 30s or in Japan in the 90s. Of course, the lesson the Keynesians take from this always seems to be that we didn't spend enough. Though of course Japan did get out of the doldrums, and we are spending relatively significantly less than they did in the 90s, so I am scornful of their opinions, as is my wont.

This however, means radical changes to the goals for our standard of living and, for example, the removal of corporate rights and regulation of size (so that there is never again a company "too big to fail" which status removes the benefit of market forces).

I don't see why we need to rework our standard of living. As for 'too big to fail' - that's a myth. I believe the effects of trying to save dying companies are worse than simply letting them die. We should have let those lousy banks fail. Instead we spent hundreds of billions for nothing.

CR

[naut]

Three years of no defence spending and your books will be balanced.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Cut taxes to stimulate investment - capital spending and corporate income taxes. This and other measures to increase incentives to invest. I am skeptical of the benefits of income tax cuts to middle and lower class brackets.

Intriguing, but surely the main aim of the vast majority of business in a global downturn (ie there's pretty much nowhere to sell to) is to cut costs? Giving them tax breaks would simply accelerate their disinvestment whilst maintaining payouts to shareholders. Apart from the fact that most corporations avoid a significant part of their existing tax burden. However, when the upturn comes (assuming that the depth of the recession is not exacerbated by the tax cuts) your plan would, I think result in marginally quicker re-investment because of larger capital bases. I would agree with you that income tax cuts would have no effect - quite sensibly, people will save against the storm - but I would argue that this applies to corporations too.

The other issue with tax cuts is that at a time when tax revenues are falling significantly anyway, you are going to substantially increase the deficit. I don't really understand how this is much different from increasing the deficit by borrowing - you're still in a whole world of debt. Unless of course, you substantially cut huge federal programmes like welfare and defence - which I would support.

Ensure credit in the banks by giving out the money with explicit contracts and guarantees from the banks that they would open the lines of credit.

This has so far proven impossible, and banks are unreformed. Even in Europe where several banks have been effectively nationalised, politicians haven't found the testicular fortitude to actually set bank policy. (And one might argue, what do civil servants and politicians have to offer in running the financial sector efficiently? ) How do you force the banks to deliver when no-one actually knows what the black hole of debt looks like - how do you gainsay a bank that says Fred the Baker's business is not credit-worthy?

I am unconvinced huge amounts of money spent by the government outside of this will do much good. It didn't in the US in the 30s or in Japan in the 90s. Of course, the lesson the Keynesians take from this always seems to be that we didn't spend enough. Though of course Japan did get out of the doldrums, and we are spending relatively significantly less than they did in the 90s, so I am scornful of their opinions, as is my wont.

Unfortunately, we don't have a control experiment to check against. We tend to interpret the Great Depression through our own beliefs. I don't know of a major economy that has tried to step away entirely and let the whole thing go to the wall to see what happens, but maybe a keener student of economics can illuminate.

I don't see why we need to rework our standard of living. As for 'too big to fail' - that's a myth. I believe the effects of trying to save dying companies are worse than simply letting them die. We should have let those lousy banks fail. Instead we spent hundreds of billions for nothing.

Subject to the caveat noted above, I don't disagree. But the effect of letting the banks go bust is not measurable given the nature of the over-reliance on financial services for the latest spurt of growth. I think you are optimistic to think that such a go-to-the-wall philosophy wouldn't hugely impact on standards of living. If I understand it, the significant moment propelling the sharp downturn was the hands-off decision on Lehman Brothers.

Personally, I would have liked to see governments let the whole thing wash down the drain. Actually see if the market would respond properly, by picking over the bones of the destruction and using the good bits to start again. Conserving money, facilitate savings, drive down the debt while people are expecting hard times and cuts, and yes, at the right time, use tax cuts to fertilise the new growth.

However, I also recognise that I am pretty well off, and wouldn't lose my job, my home, my hope, my family and my ability to eat as most other people would in such an experiment. Since these needs are high on most people's agendas, I can see why they prefer bail-outs to the probable revolutions that would scar the world. Indeed, were it to get as bad as it might, the peasantry might well be at the door with their pitchforks and torches to dispossess me in lieu, as happened several times before.

So I'm still not seeing a coherent plan that doesn't involve indentured servitude for our grand-children or the Great Unwashed fouling the Orangerie.

[seireikhaan]

Cut taxes to stimulate investment - capital spending and corporate income taxes. This and other measures to increase incentives to invest. I am skeptical of the benefits of income tax cuts to middle and lower class brackets.

Was not about 300 billion of the stimulus some form of tax cut?

Ensure credit in the banks by giving out the money with explicit contracts and guarantees from the banks that they would open the lines of credit.

Isn't that a bit... socialist?

I am unconvinced huge amounts of money spent by the government outside of this will do much good. It didn't in the US in the 30s or in Japan in the 90s. Of course, the lesson the Keynesians take from this always seems to be that we didn't spend enough. Though of course Japan did get out of the doldrums, and we are spending relatively significantly less than they did in the 90s, so I am scornful of their opinions, as is my wont.

Well, let's keep a few things in mind. First, some of FDR's first New Deal policies weren't actually Keynesian, but were undoubtedly a bad idea in retrospect- price locking, price floors, etc... Assuming, of course, that didn't somehow find itself into this bill. As for Japan's spending, I believe part of the problem was that the money often took ages to get through to the economy, such as roads that took 6 years to build and the like. As well, I seem to recall(though I could be wrong), that Japan actually started pulling itself out of its slump when it jacked the deficit up even higher than they already had. Now, is this causation, or just correlation?

I don't see why we need to rework our standard of living. As for 'too big to fail' - that's a myth. I believe the effects of trying to save dying companies are worse than simply letting them die. We should have let those lousy banks fail. Instead we spent hundreds of billions for nothing.

Amen.

However, I still approve of this particular stimulus bill, for a couple reasons. (with the giant caveat, if spending is done in a timely, efficient manner)

1) Infrastructure. I approve heartily of bettering the country's infrastructure, particularly energy grids and energy sources.
2) Tax cuts- even if temporary, the tax cuts are well needed.

[Husar]

Is this the one thing stopping you from visiting me?

well, it might make visiting you a lot easier.

High speed trains? Why? America is a big place and we use cars here. Its just not practical and considering how crappy Amtrak does, why continue a failed course.

Well, if Americans actually think scenes like this and this are preferable to relaxing in a train that takes you to where you want to go, then I don't really know what to say.
I know in certain areas that don't have a very dense population trains don't make sense but I doubt they want to connect swamp village one in Alabama with desert tent three in Texas.

I don't know my friend, it would appear that there are more and more people dependent on the government and Mr Hussien Obama promised them the world wrapped up nicely in government wrapping paper.

Didn't he say at his inauguration speech, that it will take hard world from all Americans to get out of the crisis, that he cannot do it alone and that he just wants to guide people while they work harder?
I found that pretty funny considering what guys like you and maybe some of his voters expected so I remember it very well.

For the love of God, give the man a little while. See what he actually DOES.

Yes, I actually supported bushe when he was first elected, he seemed to be a christian etc. but it didn't take me very long to realize that I was a bit naive and his words were more hot air, I was finally convinced when he admitted to lying about his casus belli for iraq that he was not nearly as good a man as I initially thought. Maybe Obama will follow a similar route, but I hope for the world and the USA that he won't.

However, I recognise that the global economy is predicated on the infinite growth of consumerism, which means (to this layman) finding ways to spend again without limit. Thus the stimuli.

That is something that worked well but I think is ultimately flawed because unless we start colonising other planets we cannot grow infinitely and thus the system stops working at some point.
The trouble of course is finding a system where numbers don't have to grow all the time for it to work and that noone is willing to do so and most would probably call me a looney while counting their millions.

[CrossLOPER]

Well, if Americans actually think scenes like this and this are preferable to relaxing in a train that takes you to where you want to go, then I don't really know what to say.

SHARING personal space? Sounds like SOCIALISM.

[Devastatin Dave]

Dave (and anyone else who feels similarly) do you have suggestions about how this economic crisis should be managed which don't involve a stimulus package?
.

Yes, you allow failure. When the people bought more house than they should of, you let them become homeless. When the banks made loans that they should not have to people who have a history of bad credit and are nothing more than lofelong losers, you let them go bankrupt. Those who have lived outside of their means and played Russian Roullete with their retirement in the stock market, you let the bullet pass through their skull. Why should I have to pay for everyone else's f-up? Bush was an idiot with the first bail out and his ridiculous spending. Obama is putting the nail into the coffin of personal responsibilty. All we are doing is causing more pain. We should have, before all the stimulus BS, was allow failure and this issue would be over a lot sonner. We are continueing the problem and only making ourselves more and more dependent on government assistance. People can call me nuts or a tin foil hat wearer, I don't care. This is his plan and its going to work because there are enough people who will believe the media and have been educated (indoctornated) into the belief that the government knows whats best. Its a bloodless revolution an no one cares because they've drank the kool aide...

And yes, it may have started with Fanne Mae and Feddie Mac, but Bush fed this monster and Obama is feeding it steroids...

[drone]

I'm with Dave on this one, Bush should have let it all go down the drain. Every now and then you have to clean house and thin the herd of the poorly run companies. Obama got voted in on "Change", but in reality people fear change, which is what would have happened as businesses collapse and realign to get through this crisis. It would have hurt, but in the long term it would have been more beneficial.

The bailouts and stimulus are just a raid on the Treasury, first for Bush's cronies, and now for Pelosi's/Obama's.

[Furunculus]

How can he destroy ruins?

The so-call free market and its "regulation" just failled so miserably than something else have to be tried.
If you want blame somebody for the disaster, blame the last two administrations which happened to be Bush ones, and the free marketeers who just destroy and pillage your country...

What ruins? Hyperbole much..............

The free-market didn't fail, a badly regulated free-market failed. America will fix the regulation (at least better than it was), and will continue to out-grow and outperform europe for the forseeable future.

[Vladimir]

Where is the poll?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I love smoking polls.