What he campaigned on is not the same as what he is doing. That is how a dangerous person gets elected. But with your infinite wisdom would have known that. [/quote]
The campaign is irrelevant. That he is little different than past presidents continues to escape you.
[/quote]
But, but, Obama promised change? [/quote]
Exactly. He promised “Hopenchangen!” “i will pull troops out!” “I will close GTMO!” “I will create jobs!” “I am not a closeted homosexual married to a tranny!”
Where’s the change? Instead, all we have is more of GWB. Bush has a troop surge in Iraq, Obama has one in AfPak. Bush passes a stimulus, so does Obama. Bush calls for amnesty, Obama calls for amnesty.
Ryan P. McCArter, apparently, can’t help but agree with the thread topic.
First, a “cycle” is that thing liberals ride to work. What you mean is “sickle.”
Oh really?! Too bad he’s so unwilling to take this obvious, easy step to right the economy. Although, I don’t know who they’re going to sell to with unemployment past 10%. Wake up: just because the GOP says something doesn’t make it true. In fact, that usually means the opposite is true.
Wait, I’m not really sure who we’re talking about here. It can’t be Obama, he hasn’t done a single socialistic thing since he’s been in office. Oh, you’re just using “socialist” as an empty pejorative, without any understanding of what it actually entails. I wish I could say I’m surprised.
But if you are talking about Obama, then you’re flat wrong. He knows quite a bit about the economy, and he’s surrounded by lots of other people who do as well. It’s YOU who doesn’t understand economics.
Wake up pal, you’ve got one. There is no quick easy solution to a recession this bad.
Is that why international opinion of the US is higher now? Bush did more to lower our stature as a country than Obama could ever dream of. Showing respect for other leaders does not lower our stature.
So threatening Iran and sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan is weak? It’s stupid, of course, but weak? I hope we never elect someone you consider strong. We’d see WW III for sure.
No more so than any other president we’ve ever had. What’s a disgrace is you mindlessly repeating slogans you’ve heard on Fox News.
You have got to wake up. You just lived through 8 years of the worst president in at least 100 years. There is nothing remotely dangerous about Obama. In fact, you should like him, because if you want capitalism to survive, it’s going to have to be in the way Obama is doing it now.
No executive experience? I love this. Bush had executive experience and Obama is STILL a much better executive than him.
[quote]Can you name anyone who has ever been elected who has such a combination of negatives?
No.[/quote]
Only pretty much every other president. Try again.
It’s a sickle, for the love of God.
Oh yes, I am a leftist–but Obama nit not. I’m sorry, I know your paranoic theories don’t sound half as good unless you call him that, but he’s just not. So, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.
Sure I would.
All I’ve taken this year have been physics and math classes. I’m sorry, I did take a religious studies class. Again, I’m sorry to take away another of your favorite conspiracy theories.
Ignoring the totally asinine claim that communists are liberals, you neglect to mention that it’s “conservatives” who have run up by far the biggest budget deficits in history (clearly, your rants are not based on facts, just gut emotion). In addition, you make the erroneous assumption that I favor higher taxes and more spending, when neither is true.
What? Your link to the Heritage Foundation? I thought YOU were trying to make a joke.
This might sound more convincing if you knew the difference between a sickle and a cycle. It might also sound more convincing if you ever read anything.
That’s capitalism, son. If you don’t like it, you may need to rethink your mindless support of it. Really, when you spend your time defending the rights of monopolists to live off the labor of others, it doesn’t make any sense to attempt to berate someone else for their perceived belief in the same set of ideals.
That’s not really the government’s job, is it?
Nothing unwitting about it. That’s why I said it. It’s why it’s so hilarious and nonsensical that the entire right wing has gone batshit insane since his election.
Actually, virtually all economists are opposed to the idea of monopoly as it affects healthy competition, which is the backbone of capitalism. I’ve opposed the bailouts of bankster monopolists at AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc. You’ve supported them.
Stop talking yourself in circles. If you oppose capitalism, you’ve obviously got some alternative in mind. The only alternatives I’ve seen lately are Communism and Fascism. Judging by your avatar, Communism appears to be your choice. How’d it work out for the Communists last century? Millions dead, no economic growth, collapse (in the case of the USSR)?
So why are you even on this thread? You’re incapable of saying anything like, “I agree with this thread topic,” since you’re so hardwired to offer nothing but betatude and snark, so why participate on a thread that you agree with?
Maybe you should go take a shower and get some sunlight. Try it. Really.
That’s capitalism, son. If you don’t like it, you may need to rethink your mindless support of it. Really, when you spend your time defending the rights of monopolists to live off the labor of others, it doesn’t make any sense to attempt to berate someone else for their perceived belief in the same set of ideals.
[/quote]
But at least libertarians and anrachists are very much against the only monopolies who live off the labor of orthers: governments.
I do not know what businesses do have to do with that though, I have never been forced to do anything by a business.
Analysis of the real unemployment rate. Thanks Obama![/quote]
The inflation of the money supply was started long ago.
Just because it exploded right before he took office means very little.
In fact it is this very idea that presidents are responsible for the unemployment rate that leads to them seeking short term economic gain at the cost of long term catastrophes.
Think social security, only with the money supply.
If Obama was truly a smart man and a good President he could jump start this economy quickly by giving small business tax cuts and setting up small business guaranteed loans.
Oh really?! Too bad he’s so unwilling to take this obvious, easy step to right the economy. Although, I don’t know who they’re going to sell to with unemployment past 10%. Wake up: just because the GOP says something doesn’t make it true. In fact, that usually means the opposite is true.[/quote]
I’m sorry you don’t understand any more about the economy than your hero does. Let me explain a few things for your edification:
You see, about 90% of the entire work force is employed by what we call “small business”. Small business is the very backbone of our economy, and when they slow or even stop their growth the economy is harmed.
When you say something like “I don’t know who their going to sell to since unemployment is past %10” you show your inexperience just like Obama.
Are you ready? Here it comes.
When millions of small firms expand they actually hire people to run their retail, service and manufacturing businesses. That means that more people do in fact have jobs and with those jobs they are able to spend money which also helps the economy.
There that was easy.
But, if you’re in Obama land you think of ways that the government (using taxpayers money) can directly help the economy. That means “make work” jobs like digging ditches and creating things that need not be created just so there will be a pay check. This artificial stimulus does nothing to help the economy long-term and may in fact harm it.
Questions?
[quote]But, your socialist hero knows NOTHING about business or the economy and the more he talks the more he shows his complete lack of knowledge on those topics.
Wait, I’m not really sure who we’re talking about here. It can’t be Obama, he hasn’t done a single socialistic thing since he’s been in office. [/quote]
Trying to push through government run health care does not strike you as something a socialist would just love?
No of course it wouldn’t you’re left of Obama. He must seem like Ronald Reagan to you.
I’ve heard that tired old line so many times. “Obama is smart, he taught law at Harvard. He’s surrounded himself with the best minds in the country, bla bla bla”. Yet, for some reason he’s been President for just about one year and the only thing he’s managed to do regarding the economy is pass another ineffecual stimulus package, (what a joke) and stand by and watch unemployment rise to about 17% (counting those who no longer qualify for benefits>
So tell me if these guys are so smart where are the results? Are they only smart when they’re standing in front of a bunch of wide eyed gullible college boys? They certainly don’t seem to be up to the taks of improving our economy.
Smart is good, effective is far better.
Wake up pal, you’ve got one. There is no quick easy solution to a recession this bad.[/quote]
I told you how to solve it and many others have offered similar plans. It just doesn’t fit into Obamas thinking. You know why don’t you?
[quote]He has also lowered our stature on the world stage by bowing to every Tom, Dick and Husien that he meets and kow towing to dictators.
Is that why international opinion of the US is higher now? Bush did more to lower our stature as a country than Obama could ever dream of. Showing respect for other leaders does not lower our stature.[/quote]
I’m less concerned of what friendly nations think of us as opposed to what unfriendly nations think of us. Bush was feared among the bad guys of the world, and there are lots of them. Obama on the other hand is snickered at as he runs across the globe apologizing for America. He’s a disaster.
[quote]Obama is a disgrace.
No more so than any other president we’ve ever had. What’s a disgrace is you mindlessly repeating slogans you’ve heard on Fox News.[/quote]
Obama IS a disgrace, but I don’t recall hearing that on Fox News, not that someone might not have said it as there are many others who feel as I do. In fact Obama’s popularity is below 50%. Can you imagine that? And that’s with the main stream liberal media kissing his ass daily and Obama giving a speech every time you turn around.
Can you imagine what will happen if the press ever actually turns on him and begins to report the (GASP) truth?
[quote]He’s the most dangerous man to ever be elected to the Presidency. He’s young, inexperienced, and an ivory towerist lefty who has no executive experience. Those things combined spell trouble for America.
You have got to wake up. You just lived through 8 years of the worst president in at least 100 years.[/quote]
First of all this is not about Bush, it’s about Obama. Secondly, I would take 8 more years of GW over Obama, and I didn’t much care for Bush.
[quote]
There is nothing remotely dangerous about Obama. In fact, you should like him, because if you want capitalism to survive, it’s going to have to be in the way Obama is doing it now.[/quote]
LOL, thanks for the comic relief, this was actually getting tedious.
Tell me if it’s good to have zero executive experience, and only two years in the senate before running for President your argument must be the less experience the better. If that’s true why don’t we find someone who is younger, more liberal and has even less experience than Obama.
Hmm, let’s see who would that be? You know it’s actually difficult to think of anyone, on the national stage who is less qualified.
Seriously, just to throw out a few names, someone like Jack Welch who ran GE would be far better. Any Presient of even a small firm of say 500 employees or so would be better. Certainly any of our top Generals or Admirals would be better. Any of our experienced Senators who have not yet sold out would be better. How about almost any Mayor of a large city? They would certainly be better.
Okay, I give up who wouldn’t be better?
Honestly what did Obama do to deserve the highest office in the land? Sorry I just don’t get it, I know he isn’t Bush but who is HE? I don’t mean this as an attack, I’m very curious as to who YOU think he is other than a young charismatic guy who can give a speech from a teleprompter. Really who is this guy? Why would you or anyone have faith in him?
[quote]Can you name anyone who has ever been elected who has such a combination of negatives?
No.
Only pretty much every other president. Try again.[/quote]
Not at all true. Most have been Governors and their executive experience has greatly help them as President. But every one of them were more toward the middle of the road than Obama who is far left.
[quote]
I am a leftist–but Obama nit not. I’m sorry, I know your paranoic theories don’t sound half as good unless you call him that, but he’s just not. So, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.[/quote]
Okay, in all honesty what else would you call a man who is trying his hardest to push through national health care at a cost of about 900 billion and also cap and trade which will cost people tens of millions in taxes IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LONGEST NASTIEST RECESSION IN HISTORY!
Come on!
He should be focused on expanding the tax base not decreasing it. (eye roll).
[quote]If you’re not a lefty then you are doing a great impersonation of one. By the way if you were in a communist country you wouldn’t be allowed to be so vocal in critiquing the government.
Sure I would.[/quote]
Yea, tell that to the millions who have lost their lives under communist regimes. You’re not even making sense now, oh wait you weren’t before either.
You actually favor smaller government less taxes. Good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Again, when you grow up and stop living off Mom and Dad’s dime you just might wake up. I think there’s hope for you, you’re trying to understand what’s going on politically, you’re trying, yes, you are trying. I just think that you need that smack in the face that only reality and about 10 more years of experience can deliver.
The level of un- and underemployment is so huge by historical standards as to make the usual sort of measurement questionable. With nearly 20% of the population unable to find proper work, there is a different sort of workforce. The vast majority of job creation in the US during the past two generations came from small businesses, which display only vaguely on the radar of government agencies as well as the bigger private surveys. The financial crisis killed small entrepreneurs as surely as Joseph Stalin killed the kulaks, and the roots of the economy are dead and dry."
Remember when I tried to explain to you why your hero should focus more on helping small business instead of liberal make work jobs?
This is how to create jobs and get out of the economic mess that we’re in:
"To really fix the unemployment problem, the President must look past his peers in government and academia to understand how jobs are actually created. In the private sector, all individuals have a choice to either work for themselves or someone else. Since labor is far more productive when combined with capital (office equipment, machinery, business models, and intellectual capital), those who lack these assets themselves often choose to work for others who have sacrificed to accumulate them. This increased productivity is shared between the worker and the owner of capital, and both are better off.
However, for one person or company to choose to offer a job to another, there must be an incentive to do so, and they must have the necessary capital. In the first place, employers must commit to paying wages and benefits, comply with government mandates and regulations, and subject themselves to potential lawsuits from disgruntled employees. All of these costs must be measured against the extra profits an employer hopes to earn by hiring an additional worker.
If profit opportunities exist, jobs will be created. Otherwise, they will not. Of course, anything the government does to raise the cost of employment, such as a higher minimum wage, mandated heath care, or greater regulatory burdens, not only prevents new jobs from being created but also causes many that already exist to be destroyed. Anything that diminishes the profit potential of extra hiring will diminish the number of job opportunities that are created. Also, since it is after-tax profits against which employers measure risk, the higher the marginal rate of income tax, the less likely employers will be able to hire.
Finally, in order to hire workers, employers must have access to capital to expand operations. Anything the government does to discourage capital formation automatically diminishes job creation. By running the largest federal deficits in history, Barack Obama is diverting all available capital to the Treasury, and is in effect waging a war against private capital formation."
Jobs that are available are federal jobs, which are generally over paid and underworked. I worked for the state, as did my father. Federal is even more fucked up than state in beaurocracy. Not to say there are not great people working civil service. But there is a definate crowding out effect and loss of efficiancy. If anyone here has worked for the guuuuuuuverment you would know how FUCKING HARD IT IS TO GET FIRED, and I have seen some real screwballs in my day. Geologists that tried to argue a point that water ran uphill. A civil eng who never did any work and stole toilet paper and other dumb shit from his office complex. Scary Steve we called him. Now where am I going with this… oh, failed states generally have the only comfortable and well paid positions in beauocracy. Afghanistan, Nigeria, Apartheid South Africa, as well as a myriad of other African countries. The old USSR… present day France. France is an interesting study though because of the cultural mentality of “Public Service” generally being for t he best and brightest and paying huge sums to its workers while the private industry works 35 hour weeks. And France’s Economy is where?
This is just an allusion to where we can be headed.
Bush did expand the deficit more than any other president in recent history. However the real danger is the Entitlement programs Medicare/caid, Social Security that are going to bankrupt the country and exacerbate the deficit 10fold by 2050 unless fixed. This is due to FDR, and LBJ primarily as well as minor additions and provisons by other democrat leaders. I dont really want to play party politics here, because I despise most republicans and democrats equally and Obama being a democrat makes no difference to me.
I think he is making good strides towards diplomacy, but often at the expense of being stern with the right people. Case in point, Irans nuclear threat could have been prevented earlier and we are now looking at a potential third war. I am not really keen on interventionism but I really do not feel right having Nuclear weapons in the possesion of Iran, much more so than NK.
Obama certainly knows economics, but hes is a definate Keynesian and we all know how that turned out during the commodity supply shocks and stagflation of the 1970’s. This is why they redid keynesianism to “New Keynesiam”, same flawed system, different name, which Obama is purporting. Case in point, stimulus package, TARP etc… under Keynesian thought this would be the delta G multipler and stimulate the economy by that factor. The flaw with this is it assumes high velocity of money and does not assume that people will hoard it against inherent and uncertain risk. This is precisely what the banks have done because the administration is so mercurial with its policy, and small busineses are the real casualty. No matter what economic school of thought one follows, uncertainty and opaqueness of government policy WHEN fiscal policy plays a big role in the Economy creates huge problems and stagnation. With a minor government role, their flucuations and flightyness would create much LESS problems…its really a dependancy issue.
The steps being taken to “fix” the economy are like putting a bandaid on cancer. Though I will say it would be rather boring without Ryan in here, however flawed his logic is.
You’re very sloppy in your interpretations. I have not stated anywhere that I support them. I HAVE stated that letting them collapse would have made the recession much worse. The point is that capitalism leads you to situations like this, where large institutions are able to hold the country hostage.
I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. I’m simply saying that, as you seem to be a free market capitalism kind of guy, I find it strange that you would fault the government for not trying to fight unemployment. I assumed you were a proponent of government leaving the economy alone.
shrug Millions dead due to capitalism. What’s your point? Soviet Russia built an industrial economy in about a third of the time it took us, with far less in the way of natural resources.
[quote]ZEB wrote:I’m sorry you don’t understand any more about the economy than your hero does. Let me explain a few things for your edification:
You see, about 90% of the entire work force is employed by what we call “small business”. Small business is the very backbone of our economy, and when they slow or even stop their growth the economy is harmed.
When you say something like “I don’t know who their going to sell to since unemployment is past %10” you show your inexperience just like Obama.
Are you ready? Here it comes.
When millions of small firms expand they actually hire people to run their retail, service and manufacturing businesses. That means that more people do in fact have jobs and with those jobs they are able to spend money which also helps the economy.
There that was easy.[/quote]
Yeah, it was easy. And it’s wrong. You make the mistake BECAUSE it’s easy, and you want an easy, feel-good solution. No one is going to hire people if they have nothing for them to do and no money to pay them with. They have no business. Do you understand this? You’re going at this entirely backwards. Unemployment is always a lagging indicator [as the bullish stock market now illustrates], but here you are saying that it leads a recovery. You are wrong.
[quote]But, if you’re in Obama land you think of ways that the government (using taxpayers money) can directly help the economy. That means “make work” jobs like digging ditches and creating things that need not be created just so there will be a pay check. This artificial stimulus does nothing to help the economy long-term and may in fact harm it.
Questions?[/quote]
The rest of this is irrelevant and incorrect, as it based on your previous error.
The rest of the world loves single-payer health care. This bill is not “government run” health care. There is (or maybe it’s out by now, I haven’t seen anything on it in a couple days) a public option, which would apply to a relatively small group of people.
There are lots of people left of Obama. He’s just not that far left.
Actually, it’s been quite effective, but I guess they didn’t tell you on Fox News.
Hmmm, here’s another place you get yourself into a jam. He cold potentially do something about unemployment, but you don’t really care, do you? He could pass some jobs bill or another stimulus, and it would help unemployment, but THEN you’d complain about the deficit, and these socialistic monstrosities. Again, you engage in rabid partisan criticism, with no consistent set of standards.
This falls into the same category as above.
Yes, and you were wrong. Moving on…
Well then you needn’t worry, because it’s quite clear (well, it’s clear to people with functioning brains) that Obama is every bit the warmonger Bush is (well, nearly).
I’d say we are the principle bad guy in the world. You needn’t worry about anybody else. This is just the way conservatives get votes. It’s not for real.
If you mean he’s a disaster in reference to apologizing for America, I would agree. If that’s what he wants to do, then he hasn’t apologized for a tenth of what he should have.
[quote]Obama IS a disgrace, but I don’t recall hearing that on Fox News, not that someone might not have said it as there are many others who feel as I do. In fact Obama’s popularity is below 50%. Can you imagine that? And that’s with the main stream liberal media kissing his ass daily and Obama giving a speech every time you turn around.
Can you imagine what will happen if the press ever actually turns on him and begins to report the (GASP) truth?[/quote]
There’s not a shred of rational thought here, so I’ll just ignore it.
Yes, that’s because you’re an idiot.
Oh yes, you’re so right. We would have been so much better off if all those banks had failed, and we had done nothing to stimulate demand. 20% unemployment rocks! (Incidentally, this is why revolutionary socialists support the libertarian platform.)
You don’t need any experience.
None of those people you listed would be better.
Uh, he won the election.
Good, the first step is to admit you have a problem.
I’m not really sure what you mean (the question is a bit vague), but I’ll give you my general impression: Obama is pretty much the same in most respects as every other president who has tried to have his cake and eat it too (that is, every other president): by which I mean, they’ve tried to sort of do the right thing without endangering the status quo. They’re not compatible.
Bullshit. Palin was a governor. She can barely talk. You don’t need “executive experience,” this is just something made up that people have used forever to criticize their opponents.
Obama barely passes the center. Again, I know of only two leftist congressmen, and neither is far-left.
[quoteOkay, in all honesty what else would you call a man who is trying his hardest to push through national health care at a cost of about 900 billion and also cap and trade which will cost people tens of millions in taxes IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LONGEST NASTIEST RECESSION IN HISTORY![/quote]
Many other western countries have national health care systems. It’s a fairly moderate thing to do. Cap and trade will NOT cost people tens of millions (that’s pure right-wing agitprop), and it’s a sensible thing to do in light of the threats of global warming. It’s not even that helpful, because in case you haven’t noticed, it’s pretty much been neutered. Once again, these things the right is afraid of are mainly sensible, moderate things.
And what will you say to the millions who have lost their lives under capitalism? But that’s different, isn’t it?
I’m not really sure why you’re laughing It’s true. Just because you don’t actually know anything about communism isn’t my fault. Why don’t you take your own advice and crack a book?
You might want to stop making 6th grade economics mistakes and learn a little bit of history before you accuse me of being ignorant.
[quote]You’re very sloppy in your interpretations. I have not stated anywhere that I support them. I HAVE stated that letting them collapse would have made the recession much worse. The point is that capitalism leads you to situations like this, where large institutions are able to hold the country hostage.
[/quote]
What do you call “not letting them collapse” but ‘support’?
At 17.5% U-6 unemployment (and higher if Great Depression I measurements were used), I’m not sure what the bankster bailouts you’ve supported have done for us. You’ve got Daddy, the rest of us don’t. Let us eat cake, right?
As near as I can tell, the US does not have a massive gulag archipelago that’s put millions to death like the USSR. We’re also not fighting imperialistic wars in Asia and wiping out whole populations (yet) to the degree the USSR did. We’re also not yet engaging in Maoist purges, Great Leaps Forward, and other things that left millions dead in Communist China.
Then, there was also the Great Terror (google it) and the various ethnic purges Stalin engaged in throughout the entire Soviet Empire and also the famines he induced. Real proud history there.
Obviously, with more people like you in charge, we’re headed the same direction.
Try reading some Solzhenitsyn some time. Suvorov is good also. Stop parroting your idiot critical studies professors like a dumb brute.
Do you have any GDP charts you’d care to put up to support that? The “lack of natural resources” argument is bunk also because Russia has oil, titanium, and a bunch of other resources and also conquered a bunch of countries that had the same.
Did a little googling myself and, even after Perestroika, the Soviet GDP numbers were abysmal:
Idealizing murderous regimes is a thing done by psychological defectives with anger at their parents they can’t seem to get over. That wouldn’t be you, would it? Naaah.
You’re incoherent. All I said was that this is the best course to take IF you support capitalism. I don’t. Where’s the confusion?
Ummm, we had slavery. Just sayin.’ Furthermore, “millions” did not die. It was about a million.
I see you’re not very familiar with US history.
Again, you’re not telling me anything I don’t know, but apparently you’re unfamiliar with the vast majority of the millions of people the US has killed (native Americans, African slaves, Mexicans, many many many Asians, all sorts of South Americans…).
Again, tell me which physics professor is proselytizing, moron.
That you are totally unfamiliar with the history of the USSR is not my fault. Read something if you’re really interested.
In which case you fail before you start. The industrialization occurred early in the century, genius. There were also a couple of wars and sabotage to deal with.
Blah blah blah, more attempts to score points without the facts on your side. See what I mean? Of course you don’t.
False. 13-15 million died in the Great Terror alone, and that was only a small period of Soviet History. We haven’t even gotten into the things Lenin did:
I’m not. I’m also familiar with the fact that disease wiped out 90% of them. Try reading a book sometimes. Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” is has a lot of facts on the subject inconvenient to this thesis you’ve regurgitated from your idiot professors.
[quote]Read something if you’re really interested.
[/quote]
I have. Like I said, Solzenitsyn is very good, as is Suvorov. You might try reading something contrary to your defective worldview if your fragile psyche can tolerate it.
[quote]In which case you fail before you start. The industrialization occurred early in the century, genius. There were also a couple of wars and sabotage to deal with.
[/quote]
Fascinating. It occurred even earlier for the UK, the USA, and continental Europe. What do you think prompted Marx to write The Communist Manifesto in 1848, genius? Also, the October Revolution didn’t even occur until 1917, so any industrialization occurring “early in the last century” can’t really be attributed to the USSR, now can it?
You’ve presented none. You present no facts in any of your posts. You just attempt this lame snarky condescension in telling people to “read something” or that we’re “ignorant of the facts.” Obviously, the facts are not on your side or you’d be able to answer so simple a question as “What was the GDP of Russia during the Soviet period?” But you’ve dodged this question like all the others but held me to a different standard. I’m expected to answer all of your questions, but you answer none of anyone else’s.
So where are these solid GDP numbers for the USSR, Little Ryan? I remember Tom Brokaw trying to do an expose on how the American poor lived to make those living under the USSR feel better about themselves. It backfired because even the American poor had things like microwaves and food.
I think this is simply common sense, something sorely missing in the Obama administration
It used to be common sense that the Earth was flat. Your point?[/quote]
Get off your high horse. If you’re trying to say that Obama is so smart that he’s breaking with the “old” model of what has actually worked through history and creating some sort of new way to succeed you’re as big a fool as he is, and I might add neither of you understand a whit about capitalism. Fortunately for us what you think doesn’t matter (nothing personal but 20 something don’t have much effect on government policy), but your hero is going to wreak havoc if he gets his way.
[quote]
If private enterprise is so great, why are we in the deepest recession in over 25 years? Why doesn’t private industry create jobs? Where are they?[/quote]
Please tell me that you’re kidding, come on. The economy is cyclical we have growth for many years and every so often we have a recession, or even depression. Does that mean that capitalism doesn’t work? Wow, if that’s the conclusion that you’ve drawn you might want to take Dads money and double down on some business and economics courses.