Stimulus failing miserablyFollow

Well, in the case of China, they need to harvest those organs. It's ingenious, in its way - you keep someone on death row until you need his liver.

Of course it is. Perhaps not as quickly as you'd like or swiftly enough to avoid being a political issue but it is unarguably improving from its nadir.

You and Thief need to get a room.

I assume you mean land somewhere other than in America. Because if the economy's as bad as you say, and spiraling even more, then land in America is going to be worthless. Maybe we should buy some in Mexico?

Hrm. That chart shows the GDP increasing again after a drop off. Almost as though the GDP has been... improving?

So you admit that it's been improving then? Since that was the point at hand.

No, but GDP hasn't been the only positive indicator either. It was, however, the one shown in his graph.

And [if/when] the economy *does* recover, due to Obama's actions? What then?

Jophed,



Yeah they only controlled congress and did their best to give W the middle finger while destroying the banking and housing sectors.

If/when you or anyone can make a reasonable case that his actions were the prime cause of recovery, I'll acknowledge his part in said recovery. I'm not holding my breath though. My moneys on just claiming that since the economy recovered, and Obama was in office, that it must have recovered because of him...



Best president ever? I love the "all or nothing" conditionals you use so consistently.

Here's the thing. I *can* present a reasonable case that Bush's actions were the prime cause of recovery (more specifically the rapidity of the recovery in that case). At the time, we pointed to the tax cuts designed specifically to allow those segments of the economy most hit by the downturn to recover, with a belief that as the businesses recovered, jobs would come back, and the entire economy would recover as well.

And what do you know? It worked exactly as predicted.

Contrast that to Obama's approach to do everything he can to hinder and harm the parts of the economy (financial industry) most directly affected by the downturn. What little help is being provided is designed to be the bare minimum, not to allow for profits, but just to keep them from bankruptcy. And those are being coupled with strangling regulations and conditions. Bush understood that for business to benefit "the people", it has to be more than just making even. It has to be profitable. Obama apparently doesn't understand this. That's why his actions aren't helping.

Actually, that was Totem's assertion. Presidents should be judged based on the economies they presided over and since the stock market had reached record highs under Bush, we should be praising Bush as one of, if not the, best presidents in our nation's history.

And many other people can present a reasonable rebuttal about why you're wrong. And other people will present reasonable arguments about how Obama helped shepherd the economy through these trying times. And you'll say they're not reasonable at all because they don't fit your bias. Whoopie.

Hahahaha...

(A) I'm sure that, with very little effort on my part, I could find people debating whether or not the Bush policies "could" cause a recovery (as opposed to a recovery occuring despite them)
(B) Whether or not they DID cause the recovery is the actual question. If someone is pointing to the recovering of said recession as proof of those economic principles being effective, saying "Well, we don't know but they maybe cooouuullldddd work..." isn't a hell of a selling point.