Even more pitiful economic numbers released. Obama built that

So they won't pass his bills, but it's his fault?

How is a President supposed to effect the economy purely from the Executive Office, good or bad? It's an administrative position; Congress has the power to tax and spend. 66% of the total budget is entitlements and most of the rest is for the military.

 

if you are going to call an argument stupid please explain how. Yes this is what people with common sense believe.

 

Over one-third of the stimulus was tax cuts for individuals and small businesses, are you opposed to that? But you are right, afterall, austerity has done wonders in Europe.

The economy has grown, not at the rate that anyone would like, but it beats losing 500,00 jobs per month. But don't sit here and pretend that expanding policies that were already in place when the previous administration was in office (tax cuts, deregulation, etc.) will fix the problem.

 

It's what quite a few Nobel laureates in Economics believe, so you might want to be careful there tallanvor.

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_beyond_balanced_budget_mania/

---Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979).

 

yes. He spent a trillion dollars and 4 yrs later the economy is worse. His fault. Nothing went as he said it would. The only position Obama can take is the one in mark's cartoon; 'yes everything is worse, but darn those Republicans and their attitude'.

rly? you think 'this is true because some experts say it is true' is a reasonable argument? who raised you?

 

The country would be a lot better off if the republican party was wiped off the face of the planet.

 

Uh, if I had to take a reasonable guess, I would rather listen to say Alan Blinder (Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics and Public Affairs in the Economics Department of Princeton University) than "tallanvor" when it comes to economic matters.

For the record, him and countless others have supported the position you're attacking. They are highly placed economists who reject the Republican folly of debt-mongering and bad governmental policy priorities.

other examples:

P.E.Hart - Emeritus Professor of Economics,University of Reading
Aaron Goldzimer - Stanford Graduate School of Business / Yale Law School
Alan Manning - London School of Economics

 

Everyone here knows damn well that Texxx wouldn't say a third of these idiotic comments in person. He's just a troll, and I'm sure that people consistently have to put him in his place, most often, for bigotry-based comments. Shame.

 

Please explain how the Executive Branch directs expenditures aside from the directions of Congress.

 

Your attempt to mimic TJ lacks creativity and intelligence.

Please try harder.

 

Bringing a new irony to the right's use of the "Oblamer" to describe the president considering they blame him for all things real or imagined. It is his fault the fans received Bud when the ordered Miller.

Is there anyone left who views both sides as the problem and this endless partisan bickering as exactly what the power brokers desire? Keep the masses busy fighting each other so that we can steal a little more of their country without resistance; and often with misguided blessing.

 

A system of two parties, where both are dependent on donations, is actually just a single party system, the Money Party. I am seriously disappointed in Mr. Obama's failure to reform the banking system more radically. But, who else would or could provide a support framework for a Party that would work for reform? Even if you elected a truly populist President, we see that a campaign to buy Congress can render him powerless. Only a large amount of money can organize a movement that can effect 435 diverse gerrymandered districts.

Occupy had the grain of a beginning but has faded out of existence without a 'system'.

 

This suggests that you're so politically focused that you can only see the world in two colors. Don't worry, plenty of D&Ders suffer from the same symptoms.

If it were up to me, everyone would outgrow their party subscriptions and become an independent critical thinker.

 

I assume you would've preferred a massive middle-class tax cut instead?

 

I prefer reduced government spending to about 15% of GDP. Right now it's at 25%.

 

Is there a particular reason why you would prefer government spending akin to the levels of Uganda rather than those of the OECD countries?

Or are you just ideologically committed to spewing economic non-sense?

 

Spending is only one side of the story. If you keep taxes the same but reduce government spending from 25% to 15% of GDP, you're removing an additional $1.5 trillion dollars from the private sector.

How is that a good thing for the economy when households are still trying to deleverage and pay down debt?

 

Is there a reason you choose Uganda as opposed to say Hong Kong?

revenue is always between 15-20% of GDP (in this country) no matter what the tax rate, so I prefer spending to be around 15% so our country isn't debt ridden. Less debt equals a more stable environment for private businesses to take risks and expand.