A coming recession?

[amused]

Which Obama policies in particular are causing the economy to stagger under them?

Yes, the economy is staggering, but that's because the Bush era recession is still in recovery.

Which Obama policies in particular, all by themselves, are causing the economy to stagger?

[Gerald McGrew]

Hilarious. The conservatives, fresh off predicting a Romney electoral rout, haven't even waited a week before predicting (and obviously hoping for) economic doom and gloom.

Um....I think you guys burned through your prognosticator cred last week. Oh well. The GOP loyalists will lap this up like the slobbering pigs they are.

[Coito ergo sum]

]
Yes, the economy is staggering, but that's because the Bush era recession is still in recovery.

And, herein lies how Obama got elected. This is nonsense. The recession ended 3 years ago. It's only "still in recovery" because of what has happened since then. I find it amazing that four years later, Obama isn't even saddled with the responsibility of the office to which he was elected. Would Reagan have gotten a pass for not fixing the Carter recession, which was worse than the 2008 recession in many respects -- higher real gasoline prices, high 10%+ inflation, high 10%+unemployment, and high 10%+ interest rates (today we have lower inflation and historically low interest rates). Yet Reagan wasn't given an entire term as a "pass."

Which Obama policies in particular, all by themselves, are causing the economy to stagger?

By way of example:

Obama's effect on small business -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hur ... 37570.html

Obama regulations cost $1.8 trillion -- http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-trill ... le/2508466

[Coito ergo sum]

Hilarious. The conservatives, fresh off predicting a Romney electoral rout, haven't even waited a week before predicting (and obviously hoping for) economic doom and gloom.

who predicted a Romney electoral route? Every pundit and commentator I heard thought it was razor close.

Um....I think you guys burned through your prognosticator cred last week. Oh well. The GOP loyalists will lap this up like the slobbering pigs they are.

LOL -- I'll see you in 2 years, when you're still saying "nobody could be expected to fix this mess in 6 years."

How many years does it actually take? 8? Do we need to repeal the 22nd Amendment, so that you can keep "hoping" for a better economy while not holding the President accountable for anything?

[Gerald McGrew]

who predicted a Romney electoral route? Every pundit and commentator I heard thought it was razor close.

Oh for the love of.....really? You've absolutely no idea that any conservatives were predicting anything other than an Obama electoral romp? EDIT: Christ man, the Romney campaign was absolutely convinced they were going to win! (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... s_bad.html)

Fuck man...every time I think you can't get more ridiculous, you one-up yourself.

LOL -- I'll see you in 2 years, when you're still saying "nobody could be expected to fix this mess in 6 years."

How many years does it actually take? 8? Do we need to repeal the 22nd Amendment, so that you can keep "hoping" for a better economy while not holding the President accountable for anything?

Are you standing behind your OP's prediction of a coming recession? If so, I'll make you a bet.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL -- I'll see you in 2 years, when you're still saying "nobody could be expected to fix this mess in 6 years."

How many years does it actually take? 8? Do we need to repeal the 22nd Amendment, so that you can keep "hoping" for a better economy while not holding the President accountable for anything?

Are you standing behind your OP's prediction of a coming recession? If so, I'll make you a bet.

Nope, since posting something with a question mark at the end is a question open for discussion.

Unlike you, I don't view "discussing" something as being "in agreement with" or "standing behind" an issue.

[Gerald McGrew]

That's what I figured...doing the Glen Beck, "I'm just asking questions" thing.

Is CES a hide-bound reactionary who argues almost exactly the same as a creationist? I'm just asking.

http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2012/11/ ... n-edition/

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Just out of curiousity - are there any Countries that operate the tax and spend policies of the Republican Party?

[Coito ergo sum]

That's what I figured...doing the Glen Beck, "I'm just asking questions" thing.

Is CES a hide-bound reactionary who argues almost exactly the same as a creationist? I'm just asking.

http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2012/11/ ... n-edition/

Yeah, because discussing whether or not the economy is teetering on another recession, in light of a serious article in the mainstream media, is the same as "asking questions as to whether someone is a creationist or a hide bound reactionary."

Only a really Obama ass-licker like yourself would make that equivalence.

Might there be economic indicators that point to a recession in 2013? Might the Obama administration and/or Democrats be responsible due to policies they've put forth? Pshawww! That's just conspiracy talk right there!?

You're a joke. Pure and simple.

[Jason]

Thank god Obama is was re-elected. At least we can't blame the last administration.

[Gerald McGrew]

Yeah, because discussing whether or not the economy is teetering on another recession, in light of a serious article in the mainstream media, is the same as "asking questions as to whether someone is a creationist or a hide bound reactionary."

Once again, you expect everyone here to swallow your bullshit. On the heels of a resounding defeat at the ballot box, you post an article from a conservative source that asserts, "The economy is staggering under the load of Obama’s policies, making it increasingly likely we will soon slip into a double-dip recession", and now you're trying to pass that off as an attempt at a serious discussion, rather than sour-grapes and partisan hackery? Un-fucking-believable.

Might there be economic indicators that point to a recession in 2013?

Yes, but they have absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama's done or is proposing to do. (Hint: Europe)

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, because discussing whether or not the economy is teetering on another recession, in light of a serious article in the mainstream media, is the same as "asking questions as to whether someone is a creationist or a hide bound reactionary."

Once again, you expect everyone here to swallow your bullshit. On the heels of a resounding defeat at the ballot box, you post an article from a conservative source that asserts, "The economy is staggering under the load of Obama’s policies, making it increasingly likely we will soon slip into a double-dip recession", and now you're trying to pass that off as an attempt at a serious discussion, rather than sour-grapes and partisan hackery? Un-fucking-believable.

It was actually, the fifth closest election in well over a century or thereabouts. The only ones closer were Bush/Gore 2000, Kennedy/Nixon 1960, Ford/Carter 1976 and Nixon/Humphry in 1968. Only an idiot would call it a "resounding defeat at the ballot box."

It's Forbes - it's a mainstream financial newspaper. And, so what if it is a "conservative source?" That doesn't mean it doesn't have a reasonable position. Why don't you read the fucking thing instead of spouting off your usual ignorant bullshit? If you care to respond to the article or the points made, then feel free. But, if all you want to do is come here and whine and cry like a little girl that the topic has been raised at all, then why don't you just fuck off to another thread that you do find interesting?

Something is seriously fucking wrong with you. If you don't feel like discussing the issue raised, then go somewhere else. Instead, you come here like a fucking fool and try to drown out the conversation altogether. This is a topic that, in your immature view ought not be discussed at all. To you, this is just a smear against Obama akin to calling him a creationist or something, because in your fawning, sycophant-like, fandom mind you have already categorized Obama as "can do no wrong." Therefore, even the mildest suggestion that that there could be a recession and that Obama's presidency might have something to do with it is too much for you to bear.

Grow up, you little baby.

Might there be economic indicators that point to a recession in 2013?

Yes, but they have absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama's done or is proposing to do. (Hint: Europe)

Says you. The article makes a pretty good case to the contrary.

It should sound ludicrous, however, to anyone with even 1/2 a brain that to suggest the Administration has "absolutely nothing" to do with the state of the American economy is about as patently laughable an assertion as can be made. NOTHING -- the Administration -- nothing the Administration has done -- has anything at all to do with the state of the economy?

Well, I'll remember that if the economy improves, and you start jerking off over Obama's greatness. I'll remind you that nothing Obama has done or is proposing to do has anything to do with it.

...err...oh, wait, that's right -- you're probably making the self-evidently valid distinction that nothing Obama has done or is proposing to do has anything to do with economic downturn, but it most certainly will have everything to do with an economic upturn.... right? That is your position, isn't it?

[Gerald McGrew]

It was actually, the fifth closest election in well over a century or thereabouts. The only ones closer were Bush/Gore 2000, Kennedy/Nixon 1960, Ford/Carter 1976 and Nixon/Humphry in 1968. Only an idiot would call it a "resounding defeat at the ballot box."

Ah yes, here comes the Republican post-election spin. Funny how the conservative pundits who were predicting Romney winning 303 electoral votes were calling that result a "landslide", but now that Obama actually topped that number, it was "razor thin". Tribalism at its very worst.

It's Forbes - it's a mainstream financial newspaper. And, so what if it is a "conservative source?" That doesn't mean it doesn't have a reasonable position.

"Answers in Genesis is a genuine scientific source!!!"

Forbes is founded, run, and edited by Steve Forbes, twice a conservative candidate for the Republican nomination for POTUS. They habitually provide a platform for the hackiest of right-wing hacks, including Dinesh D'Souza's recent attempts to paint Obama as some sort of un-American "other.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/ ... oblem.html

Why don't you read the fucking thing instead of spouting off your usual ignorant bullshit? If you care to respond to the article or the points made, then feel free. But, if all you want to do is come here and whine and cry like a little girl that the topic has been raised at all, then why don't you just fuck off to another thread that you do find interesting?

First, I did read it. That's how it was so easily identified as conservative sour grapes. Second, I'm glad to see you didn't miss yet another opportunity to tell someone who spots your bullshit to fuck off.

Something is seriously fucking wrong with you. If you don't feel like discussing the issue raised, then go somewhere else. Instead, you come here like a fucking fool and try to drown out the conversation altogether.

LOL! Looks to me like you're just pissed off that no one is buying into this bullshit. You're trying to pass this off as some sort of serious analysis rather than the partisan hackery that it is, and now you're grousing because no one is falling for it.

See, we don't all watch Fux News and slurp up whatever spin and lies they feed us. I know that's hard for some folks to accept, but it's true.

Says you. The article makes a pretty good case to the contrary.

No, says the data (ahhhhhh....data, the conservative's kryptonite).

Nine economies in Europe are contracting and their debt crisis may pull others along with them. China's growth continues to slow as well. The POTUS has almost no control over either of those. Did you catch that CES? Pleas re-read that so you don't get it all wrong like below. I did not say the POTUS has nothing to do with the state of the US economy, but rather I said that the specific indicators that point to a possible recession are not within the control of the POTUS. If you still don't understand that, read it again, because...

It should sound ludicrous, however, to anyone with even 1/2 a brain that to suggest the Administration has "absolutely nothing" to do with the state of the American economy is about as patently laughable an assertion as can be made. NOTHING -- the Administration -- nothing the Administration has done -- has anything at all to do with the state of the economy?

...you really need to avoid this sort of stupid error if you expect anyone to take you at all seriously. Let's recap....

You stated, "Might there be economic indicators that point to a recession in 2013?" and I responded, "Yes, but they have absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama's done or is proposing to do. (Hint: Europe)". Now, somehow you read that as me saying the POTUS has nothing to do with any economic indicators. I won't speculate on why you made such a basic stupid mistake, but I'll once again suggest that you slow down a bit and actually pay attention to what people write.

[Coito ergo sum]

It was actually, the fifth closest election in well over a century or thereabouts. The only ones closer were Bush/Gore 2000, Kennedy/Nixon 1960, Ford/Carter 1976 and Nixon/Humphry in 1968. Only an idiot would call it a "resounding defeat at the ballot box."

Ah yes, here comes the Republican post-election spin. Funny how the conservative pundits who were predicting Romney winning 303 electoral votes were calling that result a "landslide", but now that Obama actually topped that number, it was "razor thin". Tribalism at its very worst.

Oh, I see where you're missing it. "Ballot box" is generally a reference to the popular vote, idjit. You said it was a "resounding defeat AT THE BALLOT BOX." It wasn't. It was a pretty close popular vote. The electoral college, however, went handily to Obama. You may, in time, be able to puzzle out the difference between those two things.

It's Forbes - it's a mainstream financial newspaper. And, so what if it is a "conservative source?" That doesn't mean it doesn't have a reasonable position.

"Answers in Genesis is a genuine scientific source!!!"

False analogy. Forbes is not to news as Answers in Genesis is to science.

Forbes is founded, run, and edited by Steve Forbes, twice a conservative candidate for the Republican nomination for POTUS. They habitually provide a platform for the hackiest of right-wing hacks, including Dinesh D'Souza's recent attempts to paint Obama as some sort of un-American "other.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/ ... oblem.html

Your view of it, then, is that if it's not spoken or written by a liberal democrat, it's like Answers in Genesis. You really are a sycophant, aren't you?

Why don't you read the fucking thing instead of spouting off your usual ignorant bullshit? If you care to respond to the article or the points made, then feel free. But, if all you want to do is come here and whine and cry like a little girl that the topic has been raised at all, then why don't you just fuck off to another thread that you do find interesting?

First, I did read it. That's how it was so easily identified as conservative sour grapes. Second, I'm glad to see you didn't miss yet another opportunity to tell someone who spots your bullshit to fuck off.

You'd not get that sort of reaction from me if you would refrain from your usual attacks and idiocy.

Something is seriously fucking wrong with you. If you don't feel like discussing the issue raised, then go somewhere else. Instead, you come here like a fucking fool and try to drown out the conversation altogether.

LOL! Looks to me like you're just pissed off that no one is buying into this bullshit. You're trying to pass this off as some sort of serious analysis rather than the partisan hackery that it is, and now you're grousing because no one is falling for it.

I'm not talking about anyone else besides you.

See, we don't all watch Fux News and slurp up whatever spin and lies they feed us. I know that's hard for some folks to accept, but it's true.

No. You slurp and feltch the MSNBC spitup. The difference is, I don't watch FoxSnooze. You do, however, turn the lights out and jerk off to Ed Shultz and Lawrence O'Donnell and the rest of the MSDNC clan.

Says you. The article makes a pretty good case to the contrary.

No, says the data (ahhhhhh....data, the conservative's kryptonite).

Funny, you've presented none. Well, you've presented your own rantings, which, of course, to an Obama sycophant is the equivalent of data.

Nine economies in Europe are contracting and their debt crisis may pull others along with them. China's growth continues to slow as well. The POTUS has almost no control over either of those. Did you catch that CES? Pleas re-read that so you don't get it all wrong like below. I did not say the POTUS has nothing to do with the state of the US economy, but rather I said that the specific indicators that point to a possible recession are not within the control of the POTUS. If you still don't understand that, read it again, because...

You'll need to connect this up -- you think that the economies of tiny blips like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, etc. control the US economy so much that the Presidential Administration has nothing to do with the economic indicators pointing to a possible recession? NOTHING - to do with it?

It should sound ludicrous, however, to anyone with even 1/2 a brain that to suggest the Administration has "absolutely nothing" to do with the state of the American economy is about as patently laughable an assertion as can be made. NOTHING -- the Administration -- nothing the Administration has done -- has anything at all to do with the state of the economy?

...you really need to avoid this sort of stupid error if you expect anyone to take you at all seriously. Let's recap....

You stated, "Might there be economic indicators that point to a recession in 2013?" and I responded, "Yes, but they have absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama's done or is proposing to do. (Hint: Europe)". Now, somehow you read that as me saying the POTUS has nothing to do with any economic indicators. I won't speculate on why you made such a basic stupid mistake, but I'll once again suggest that you slow down a bit and actually pay attention to what people write.

You're really trying to suggest that there ARE economic indicators that the Obama Administration does have something to do with, but these aren't any of the economic indicators that point to a recession in 203? Obama only has something to do with those economic indicators that don't point to a recession?

Like I said -- sycophant -- your sophistry knows know bounds.

[Robert_S]

I'm going to have an economic recession if I don't find my other shoe in time to get to work.