wf3h wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:45 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?
Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Until recently we were paying a tax on our telephone whose original
purpose had long since passed. History does count.

Unfortunately there are those that would rather repeat the mistakes of
the past than learn from history. Consider the lessons from the
thirties that are being ignored. The democrats tried to spend the
country out of the depression. It took twenty years and two wars before
the country was able to extract is self from that spending spree. Yet
what is obama doing today? Adding two trillion dollars to the deficit
to get the country out of what he considers a depression. How many
years and wars will it take the US to get out of obama's fiasco?


he's implementing good economics that the republicans themselves tried
to get started last year. you don't know much about economics, do
you?

What "good ecomonics" is Obama implementing?

You do understand that the government does not create wealth. Ask the
USSR, oops can't do that can you they went bankrupt. China understands
it because they have private businesses.

On Sep 3, 9:00*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 2, 3:22 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the
mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals
want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about
anything
Uh, uh, what mess?

that you don't know tells us why we're in the mess we're in

that you can't state what the mess is tells us you don't know what you
are talking about

but, you still have the issue don't you-

the mess is that we've been there for 8 years and still haven't
resolve the problem. i know to you right wingers, that's not an issue
because a right wing president was failing, but to patriotic
americans, it IS a problem

and part of the problem is that you, like bush, can't see the problem

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:04 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:50:36 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

Like I told Eisboch, when I lost my job because of the bad economy
during The Great Reagan Depression in 1982 - much worse than now BTW -
i was there too. that one was child's play compared to bush's fiasco
Depends. You know they say a recession is when a neighbor loses his
job and a depression is when you lose yours. I lost mine then.
I'm doing much, much better now than I was then.
There are many ways to look at it, some being how accurately the
unemployment stats reflect reality, how much unemployment comp is
available, etc, etc.
But going by unemployment stats alone,http://www.davemanuel.com/historical...-in-the-united...
"The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and
December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8%
The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an
average unemployment rate of 9.71%"

unemployment right now is about 9.5 and will probably go to 11% next
year

What is Obama doing to encourage job growth in the USA? The answer nothing.

I didn't blame Jimmy Carter for that depression. He was gone.
Eisboch wanted to blame Carter , because he was a sap for Ronnie
Raygun.
So to make that work, he had to defend Obama with Bush's sins.
I don't play that game. There's only one decider at a time.
If things continue to get worse and you lose your job, good luck
blaming GWB. He won't make your car payments, and you'll be looking
for Obama to get you back on your feet.
uh...no. what looking at history does is, hopefully, prevent you from
making the same mistake twice...like voting for a right wing president
who says 'trust the free market'.
Uh, no what? Are you saying that GWB is going to keep Loogy
working and making car payments? You're a bit behind times.
A right wing Prez wasn't elected. Obama was elected, so that history
you speak of already worked.

and hopefully we wont buy the lies of the right and trash obama. bush
lied for 8 years and the right sucked his dick. obama's trying to
help the middle class and the right are going after him with torches
and pitchforks

Obama is bending the middle class over as well as the upper class and
the lower class and giving them all a good ****ing. Obama is hell bent
on reducing everyone to the least common denominator, it is easier to
control them then.

On Sep 3, 9:09*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:

unemployment right now is about 9.5 and will probably go to 11% next
year

What is Obama doing to encourage job growth in the USA? The answer nothing.

IOW you haven't heard of the TARP program

no surprise. right wingers don't know about keynsian economics.

and hopefully we wont buy the lies of the right and trash obama. bush
lied for 8 years and the right sucked his dick. *obama's trying to
help the middle class and the right are going after him with torches
and pitchforks

Obama is bending the middle class over as well as the upper class and
the lower class and giving them all a good ****ing.

bush only ****ed the middle class. at least obama is talking about
regulating the market. bush seemed to think that as long as the rich
were rich, everything was fine

Obama is hell bent
on reducing everyone to the least common denominator, it is easier to
control them then.-

and the rich not only DID this but got sock puppet like you to shill
for them

On Sep 3, 9:04*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:


he's implementing good economics that the republicans themselves tried
to get started last year. *you don't know much about economics, do
you?

What "good ecomonics" is Obama implementing?

high govt spending to make up for lack of consumer demand.

You do understand that the government does not create wealth.

nor has the free market in the last year. in fact the free market
DESTROYED wealth. you just seem to want to ignore the data.

Ask the
USSR, oops can't do that can you they went bankrupt. China understands
it because they have private businesses.-

china's economy grew faster than ours did last year. you were saying
about how the rich help the middle class?

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 3, 7:26 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:45:50 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
Unfortunately there are those that would rather repeat the mistakes of
the past than learn from history. Consider the lessons from the
thirties that are being ignored. The democrats tried to spend the
country out of the depression.
Where to you come up with this BS? The Keynesian gripe about FDR was
that he didn't spend enough to fight the Depression. Hoover brought the
national debt from 20% GNP to 40% GNP. FDR never went over 40% until
WWII. If anything, FDR was too timid in his spending. Note the balanced
budget in 1938.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php



exactly. if spending is the issue then it doesn't matter in the short
term whether it's the consumer or the govt is spending. someone needs
to drive the economy.

Where does the government get its money? From the consumer?

Where does the consumer get its money? From jobs.

No jobs, no consumer money. No consumer money, no money for the government.

At a company when sales are reduced you still have to pay everyone. Or,
you could reduce your expenses by eliminating jobs, the fastest and
easiest way to reduce expenses. But if you reduced taxes on the
companies and the workers there is more money for companies to keep
people on the payroll and less money to pay unemployment.

Reducing taxes worked for Kennedy why won't it work for Obama?

the real problem we're facing now is that business hasn't learned you
can't grow the economy by laying off consumers.

The government hasn't realized that when times are tough you can't
sustain your revenue by squeezing money from rock. When the government
puts a company out of business because it can't pay the taxes what
happens to all of the employees of that company?

On Sep 3, 9:17*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:


exactly. if spending is the issue then it doesn't matter in the short
term whether it's the consumer or the govt is spending. *someone needs
to drive the economy.

Where does the government get its money? From the consumer?

no, it doesn't. right now it borrows it. learn some economics.


Where does the consumer get its money? From jobs.

which have collapsed courtesy of the 'free market'


No jobs, no consumer money. No consumer money, no money for the government.

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--

because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the
mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals
want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about
anything
Uh, uh, what mess?

That is a question none of them can answer... They just say it because
Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart told them to..


None of 'them'? Who is them? I can answer it. Bush promised to rebuild
infrastructure, then did nothing. Oilwells and pipelines mangled,
buildings blown up, roads broken, electric distribution ruined, water
pipelines inoperative, and on and on. Also, Bush promised them political
stability, and that promise never came to fruition either.

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.

I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H

Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?

Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us
out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent,
reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he
didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it.
Remember, half the country didn't...

--
Wafa free since 2009

In article ,
says...

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--

because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the
mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals
want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about
anything

Uh, uh, what mess?
--
John H


The infrastructure is in shambles, Bush promised to rebuild it.

It's a lot better than when we went in. Girls are in school for one...

--
Wafa free since 2009