Barack Obama accused of making 'Depression' mistakes

reply to post by aravoth


And what was World war II?

Massive government spending.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Well, I stand corrected, all it took was a few billion dollars, and a few million deaths. Wonder how big of a war we'll need to get out of this one.

Collateral damage right? Whats a few million dead people to the US government? Absolutely nothing apparently.

Yes, all we need is a nice, huge, long war. Which Obama has shown he doesn't mind fighting at all.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by aravoth]

reply to post by aravoth


No need to make a spin out of it and get angry. Just telling you why WWII worked.

reply to post by nixie_nox


He, he, it did for the US that was industrialized faster than the rest of the world due to us been far from destruction.

I think this time China will be doing the reconstruction.

It all comes down to this.

Every policy maker since Kennedy is at fault here, not just Obama and Bush. This has been in the works for a long time because politicans known nothing about economics.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Who's angry? I was just pointing out how Human life is secondary to a politicians stock portfolio. Unless your one of those people that think your favorite politicians aren't millionaires with huge investments in every bank they voted to bailout, or in defense companies that get to supply our country with new bombs after we use the old ones to blow up weddings in Pakistan. If you are that person, it would suck to be you.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Believe it or not, it's government's job to spend in a recession. If government doesn't increase liquidity by spending in a recession, it's a sure way to create a depression.

We all like to criticize Obama for his stimulus plan but forget it was backed by Republicans and leading economists at the time. It was also not the first but the third government stimulus this decade.

Bush spent an equal amount in just the last few months of his term, but that money went directly to the bankers and the Treasurer (Paulson) refused to let any of that money be used to help manufacturing companies or create jobs. In contrast, Obama's stimulus is going to the people with tax cuts for those who need it most and money for job creation.

Apparently, most republicans would prefer to just give all our tax money to the banks.

This is the case if you subscribe to Keynesianism, aka believe in something that was disproved by Milton Friedman and other economists decades ago.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Having respected your postings for quite a while, I must express this is the first time I've ever been so dissapointed to read what you just said.

This has nothing to do with parties, or policies... the financial advisors under Bush are the same under Obama. Its about blaming Government, the institutionalized corruption.. Obama is the face of the Government, a government who's only change since elections is its new poster boy. Thus the new poster boy gets the blame.

You sinking to partisan politics is saddening...

Rockpuck, you have my utmost respect but I'm confused why you think I'm 'sinking to partisan politics'? Apart from the fact that I'm participating in a partisan political thread, nothing I've written has been anything but a statement of fact.

It IS an accepted part of monetary policy for the government to increase liquidity in the face of a recession, through federal reserve and treasury programs. This has been done by BOTH parties over the last 2 years. Nothing partisan there.

Obama's stimulus plan WAS backed by both parties at the time, the bill passed the house with a vote tally of 385 to 35 and that's public record. Nothing partisan there.

www.votesmart.org...

The Bush administration DID spend as much in their last few months as Obama, in fact it was far more if you add in all the guarantees to back bank debt it comes to almost $11 TRILLION dollars. The actual outlay so far has been $2.8 Trillion, of which only $480 Billion has been under Obama's watch. The figures don't lie and there's nothing partisan there.

money.cnn.com...

That money WAS restricted to banks and Paulson DID refuse to allow the funds to go to help any other industry. In the end, republicans and democrats came together to approve the funding to save the auto companies, so there's nothing partisan there either.

blog.cleveland.com...

The claims in this thread have been absolutely absurd - Obama lost $9 Trillion - down the back of a sofa? Bush had a total deficit of only $400 Billion - after running $300B average deficits every year for 8 years, an $800B tab for two wars, $2.3T in bailouts to the banks and increasing the national debt from $5T to almost $11T. Fuzzy math much? Oh, and Obama's spent more than any president EVER - that $10.8T National Debt in December 2008 must have been what? Obama's U-Haul bill?

So I'm at a loss to understand why you consider my post 'sinking to partisan politics' when it's the only one in the whole thread that has any basis in facts.

[edit on 9/14/2009 by mythatsabigprobe]