United States Heading towards a Depression?

The bad part isn't "a war looking for something that's not there", it's not "how much did it cost", it's not even "how much did Cheney and co." make.

It's that he refused to fund his war. The whole war (including Halliburton's obscene profits) was financed on debt - the crushing debt we have now. The deficit is the bill for Bush's war. So is the unemployment. So is the recession. So will be the depression.

So why are we blaming Bush for all this? Because he caused it, and realists blame the guy who did it.

And what will happen if we get another Republican administration? Look at history. Hoover. Reagan. Bush 2. Crushing debt and deficits, leading to recessions and depressions.

What will happen if we keep getting Democratic administrations? Again look at history. FDR. JFK. Clinton. Budget surpluses, leading to prosperity. Terrible thing to have too much money, right? (The only problem is that the wealthiest 1% won't be owning 99% of the prosperity, and they can't allow that to happen. The 99% don't have the right to lead decent lives.

So vote your choice - an easy life or another depression.

 

Warmongers.....

Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be known, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

This is Obamanation's favorite pinch line.....

Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

Embarrassment......

Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.



Link

 

Obama is a failure, and in over his head.

It's amazing what people will bring up instead of talking about his record.

 

It will be another depression !

 

By fund, I'm assuming you mean raise taxes? Perhaps you forgot the war followed immediately on the heels of 9-11, which sent our economy into a tailspin. Like Obama, Bush is a Keynsian (not a Kenyan), so deficit spending was the order of the day. If I recall, most Americans were ok with it at the time, as the votes recorded in the house and senate will show.

I'm thinking that either you have no access to any financial data, or you refuse to look at it. You also seem to have forgotten about the mortgage crisis, and an 800 billion "stimulus" payola, and two phases of 350 billion dollar TARP payments, and a massive increase in the size of the government under Obama, and the massive military ramp up in Afghanistan under Obama, and a myriad of other factors that make up the US Debt.

When you put something that obnoxiously ignorant to print, it puts any statement you might put to print in doubt.

Ahh, well that explains it. You should have lead with that statement. Every time a person puts the 1% vs the 99% OWS class jealousy nonsense to print, its like flying a big banner that tells everyone so much about you.

 

Spending money you don't have is 100% in control of future debt. The more unfunded spending you do, the deeper the future debt. This leads to deficits and recession.

And that's exactly what Bush 2 did - he spent an unfunded $136 billion on his wars (which he blatantly, and knowingly, lied to Congress to get us into), and that's not an insignificant part of our trillion dollar deficit. Add the $955 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy (not counting the years since Obama has been in office and the Republicans have refused to let the cuts die), and we'd still have a budget surplus. (And Romney wants to keep them going, which will cost an additional $2 trillion if he's in office for 2 terms.)

Why do we blame Republicans for debt, unemployment and recession? Because, over and over, they're been in office when these things happen (Hoover, Reagan, Bush 2 and a lot more). Either we're seeing a coincidence so great that life is useless and we're just computer data in the Matrix, or Republicans are responsible for these things.

 

And................. What is Obama doing right now ???

 

So can we credit Obama for the 6 Trillion dollars he has spent in 3 years as spending money he didn't have?

Do you understand the difference between a debt and a deficit? Deficit is how much more you spend annually, than what you take in. The debt is what you owe. As an example, Obama is currently spending 1.5 Trillion dollars more each year than what we take in. It far exceeds any deficit run under Bush, and the Iraq war is over. I'm happy to see you rail against deficits, you just need to move into the year 2012 and look at what is going onin Washington RIGHT NOW.

Why are liberals always so uninformed on basic accounting. Tax cuts effect revenue, which is an inflow, not an outflow. They would NEVER appear on the expenses side of the spreadsheet.

Furthermore, the effect tax cuts have on revenue is debatable. Lower taxes stimulate economic activity, economic activity generates taxes. If your tax base is $100 and you cut taxes from 30% to 20%, you don't lose $10 if your tax base grows to $200 as a result. The actual amount lost or gained is always up for debate since it is impossible to relive the same period of time with a different tax code in place. That siad, perhaps it would be better if you stuck with something the collective federal government does control, like spending. Once you arrive at reality, have a look at Obama's budget. If Bush was bad, and he was, Obama is bad on steroids.

So tell me. Who controlled congress in 2008 when financial markets collapsed? Who controlled the White House in the late 70's for stagflation? What party controlled the White house during the recovery that followed? These are basic, easily verifiable facts.

 

...and called them 'freedom fighters' when they were fighting Russia... but when they started doing the same to America... they got 'rebranded' as 'terrorists'. LMFAO!

Pull the dogs tail too many times and he's gonna turn around and bite ya!

 

Its a basic concept. You shoot a man entering your home, its called self defense. You roll into someone elses home and shoot someone its called murder. No they do not equate, but your calculator seems to be broken.

By the way, nice to see you roll onto defending international acts of terrorism, and not just those committed against Israel. It really helps define you.

 

Fighting a Republican Congress whose ONLY action is saying no to anything that Obama wants.

For instance, the stimulus increased the number of jobs to the point that the NET number of jobs, which had been shrinking until then (all during Bush 2's terms), began to increase. Congress wouldn't allow the stimulus to be large enough, or continue long enough, to do the job it was designed to do.

That's what Obama is doing right now.

 

Do it over and over and over - and act surprised each time he bites you - and people who can actually think will begin to think that the reason you're pulling his tail is to get him to bite you. Keep doing it with different dogs and they'll think that your only aim is to shoot dogs.

And they'll be correct.

 

There, I fixed it for you, and considering how much you claim to hate deficit spending, one would assume you hate Obama by now.

I always get a chuckle out of people who think a leaders inability to lead is the fault of those who refuse to follow. What you are describing is the very antithesis of leadership. Conversely, Clinton presided over an obstinate Republcian controlled congress and got them to vote for all his legislation. That is what is called leadership. Clinton had it. Reagan had it. And here is the real kicker. Bush had it, at least more than Obama does.

 

NICE !

Anyone that calls Obama a "leader" is delusional and confused. No matter how you slice it, he's been a failed LEADER, and the excuses proves it !

Unfortunately we aren't changing what the definition of leadership means for this guy.

 

Killing the tax cuts on the 1% would have helped. Increasing taxes on them past that would have been fair - since many of them were the people profiting from the wars.

That's MY argument - that Bush was a voodoo economist, and his actions caused the mess we're in right now.

Most Americans don't understand the first thing about economics, so their "being okay" with an economic policy means as much as their being okay with nuclear physics.

The votes in Congress show how okay the Congresscritters are with something, not how okay the people are with it.

Or I actually do look at actual financial data, not the lies Foggy Bottom fed us for decades of Republican administrations.

Caused by Republicans lifting controls on the banking industry. Thanks, I left that one out.

Obama's? The one that actually accomplished something? (Like stemming and actually reversing Bush 2's loss of jobs? see the third chart at this site.)

Signed into law by Bush 2 on October 3, 2008, so of course it's Obama's fault. (How many Republicans were involved in making sure that it remained an obligation after Obama became president?)

Right, it's much better to throw money into a war we can't win because we're not spending enough to win it. Who doesn't understand economics? (Hint: it's not me.)

I'm jealous of the 99%? How does that work? I'm one of the 1%, but I'm not as greedy as most of them. Just living off the right side of the menu is enough for me.

Actually Romney should be my choice. He'll totally destroy the economy, and that would make me a lot more money. At the expense of a lot of families having to choose between rent or food, food or medical care, life or finding a box in the park to live in. But I'm not like that - I can't abuse children just to make more money, and - among other things it is - destroying the economy is child abuse.

But feel free.

Next time, try knowing what you're posting about.

 

And the vomit continues...

Logic ?

 

Once again, o-nation...you danced around the issue. While Christie has been in office, the unemployment rate has gone UP

maybe you don't know what that means. Its basically a bad sign.

For many months governor christie has been running around the nation TOUTING the NJ changes he instituted. Now he isn't mentioning it anymore. Why??? Maybe he is all mouth and stomach and no substance. Maybe all that credit he was taking is now a bunch of hogwash.

If he wants the credit he should be big enough (he is plenty big enough around the waste) to take the penalty also. It appears neither he, nor you, his mouthpiece can handle that.

What is going on in NJ these days. They have more jobs than the bottom of the recession. Good news...but most everyone has more jobs than the bottom of the recession. The state gained jobs at casinos and is losing finance and science/research jobs.

Maybe you and he would like to take credit for that. Jobs that might pay in the six figure income stage are being replaced by jobs at a casino for dealers, drink servers, hosts and hostesses. Overall that is a loss in economic well being.

Is big Chris Christie and are you man enough to handle the responsibility of these downward changes after he spent months running around the country claiming all sorts of accomplishments for changing the way NJ was working.

That is a nifty graph. What does it tell us. It cuts off in late 2010 and its all about the entire US and not at all specific about NJ. Why are you throwing it in there...and why when the issue is Chris Christie and his months of big mouthing about accomplishments we see an increase in unemployment....and after giving him all the credit...now you want to blame obama.

Its like I pointed out earlier with regard to Right Wing groupthink.

If its bad blame it on obama. The titanic sank. blame it on obama, The Japanese had a sneak attack on 12/7/41....blame it on obama. 9/11/2001 occurred blame it on obama.

Governor Christie runs around the country telling everyone how he has changed New Jersey for the better...than is hit with bad economic news in the midst of his term....blame it on obama.

So what does the right wing take responsibility for???? guns and shootings????

 

I'm sure you were planning on citing some hard evidence to back this claim, but in case you weren't I thought I'd give you the opportunity to do so now.

You must not have had your coffee this morning, or perhaps this week. First, graph reading 101. Note the little tick marks underneath each of the vertical lines that correspond to the labels beneath the graph. This provides you an indication that the vertical lines on the graph correspond to the labels under them. In the case of this graph, a vertical lines are three years apart. Note the last line represents the year 2010, yet there is still two thirds of a box following that line with graphing data. That deeply diving graphing data in the last column represents years 2011 and 2012.

Why post the graph? Three reasons.

First, it tells us that, even though the national unemployment rate has come down a bit since 2009, there are fewer people actually working in the United States. This graph does not ignore all the people who have given up trying.

Second, had you read your own article, you would have noticed the Labor Force participation rate in New Jersey is above the national average. It means more people in New Jersey are actually working when compared to other states run by your Marxist heroes.

Lastly, it highlights that Obama has completely failed to turn around the employment situation in America on a national level, leaving people like Chris Christie swimming against the Obama tide of unemployment.


Note the labor force participation rate has actually dipped below Jimmy Carter levels of 30 years ago, after a long string of Republican Presidents. I suspect if people knew they were reelecting Jimmy Carter in 2008,they would likely have considered Sarah Palin to be the better choice.


Again, here is the graph so you can appreciate where Obama has taken us.