Boehner says "FUBO"Follow

What up, Varus?

Funny, I thought it was the fault of a global recession caused by the rich taking advantage of the poor. You know, banks and all that.

I'm sure you're right though, it's the fault of those guys who live on the other side of town who can't afford to eat every day.



Can't have a government if only one half shows up.

Edited, Sep 1st 2011 8:29am by Nilatai

Says the guy who just tried to ignorantly argue that Republicans don't care about jobs because they have virtually the same recess schedule every congress has every year.

Damn that evil "Republican" Nancy Pelosi for making Democrats take the same vacation in 2009. 2009 Schedule

But that was 2009 though back when Barry had the economy booming right Joph? So it was OK for Democrats to take the same vacation because if it wasn't then that would make you a hypocrite wouldn't it Joph?

I'd say it was a relatively tame non-issue until the 24-hour news media got wind of it and started portraying it as a partisan slap-fight. I didn't find anything particularly petulant or politick about Obama's scheduling or Boehner's request to move it.

Also, who amongst the viewership of the GOP debate or the NFL opening game really cares about another speech by Obama? The 24-hour news media will give us the Cliff's Notes the day after either way.

It was interesting to see the super-lefty take on this little theater. The meme among the FDL liberals is "Obama CAVED on yet another thing!!!11!!!"

I think they're more upset than the Tea Party about it being rescheduled.

Your hypocrisy is disappointing. Both Reagan and George W. Bush spent more time on vacation at this point in their terms than Barack Obama has. Your point on that topic is null and void as it is based purely on some sort of ****** up partisan fantasy you've created in your head after watching Bill O'Reilly too much.



During the last 30 years you have had 20 years of Republican Presidents, 16 of Republican controlled Senates, 13 of Republican Congress. What was that about 30 years of "liberal" policies? Do some basic research, sir. The current economy is the result of things done by both Republican and Democratic government over the last 20-25 years or so, and I think it's messed up that the blame gets tossed on whoever is in power at the time, and the past mistakes of other governments(left and right) are completely ignored.

Also, I hear you and the other neo-cons here(and on tv, in newspapers, etc.) talk about all the things Barack Obama isn't doing, why don't you explain what he should be doing? In detail, not just what he should be doing, but how he should be going about doing it, what process will create jobs and fix the economy in the unrealistic timeframe that you people seem to expect?

But you won't. It's becoming very clear that you(and Varus, Gbaji(though not all the time), and all the neo-con figureheads and pundits) never have any idea what you're talking about. You complain and criticise, but won't provide other options. You'll never provide a viable option, because you're talking out your ***, sticking to the party line regardless of what happens, or how absolutely ridiculous the constant hypocrisy makes you look.

But still, I ask again, if Barack Obama is doing the wrong things to fix the economy, what would be the correct way of doing it, and seeing the near-instant results you've been wanting?

Yeah, you have. "Do nothing" and "wait and see". Inspiring.

Firstly, the deregulation of Wall Street that started in the 80s and still continues now is one factor that can be blamed. Secondly, the massive, and often unnecessary deficit spending(NEVER pay for war with deficit spending, it can lead to nothing but economic instability, and yet you have, twice in the last 10 years, I think you still are actually) has kind of ****** you over pretty badly. You didn't have enough money, because you spent it all in the ******* desert.




Perhaps cutting military spending and pursuing a policy of military isolationism would be very helpful as well, save billions not sending men off to die in wars they shouldn't be fighting in in the first place.

Change then nature of the war on drugs, continue to fight against proven killers such as Cocaine, Heroin, Meth, etc., legalize marijuana, treat it like alcohol or tobacco, the revenue would be great. I don't say this as a user(2 months sober actually), I say this having learned how much money goes into fighting marijuana, and how much money could be made by selling it like, as earlier stated, alcohol and tobacco, both save and make money.

Regulate Wall Street. A company that purposefully misinforms its customers and investors and proceeds to bet against itself and proceeds to become part of the cause of a recession as a result, should not be able to do so, but thanks to deregulation, it can. I'm a capitalist, but there is a line where it stops being the pursuit of that "American dream", and becomes absolute greed.

Pay cuts for President, his staff(Sec. of state, etc.), Senators, Congressmen, and all other major government positions. Not only would this save some money, but you'd find that the quality of politicians would go up because less would be thinking about the money they make, and more about, you know, actually doing their jobs.

Stop preventing trade with countries with different ideologies, if another country might even remotely be willing to pay for American things, why prevent them from doing so because they're communists? or fascists? or muslims? Did you know that Cuba originally turned towards the USA when Castro took over? Could have worked out really well, but because his regime seemed somewhat leftist, the USA refused to do anything to help, and this was before Castro had even declared a political leaning for the new Cuba, and before he had even spoken to anyone from the Soviet Union. Your ideological ******** is costing you money, and has been for over 50 years.

By the way, I highly doubt that anything could have the economy fixed within 6 months. This is a worldwide issue now, and it's not just about you. But if you can fix yours internally, it can be a start to fixing a much, much larger economic ************



It seems to occur to you that not spending is a viable solution, doesn't seem to have ever occurred to any politician with any amount of power for the last 11 years. Because guess what, your government is still throwing money at unnecessary things.



In a way. Usually I never get a serious response to my requests for someone to throw some ideas and stuff out there. While I disagree with a lot of what you said, at least you actually gave an answer to the question.

1) Canada doesn't need a defense force because no one would dare to attack Canada with a big f'ucking stick sitting on its southern border.
2) The Bush tax cuts expired. The Obama tax cuts are still not low enough.
3) We need normalized revenue through tax reform and significantly decreased spending. That's the only way to fix out debt/deficit issue.

*cough*




The reason our economy isn't recovering, is because jobs aren't being created. The reason jobs aren't being created is because everyone who might create jobs is worried that costs associated with employment will rise (including taxes and health care). Eliminate those things and they'll start hiring. They start hiring and the economy will recover.

Well at least you both agree that unemployment is high. That's a start.

Oh. Point I wanted to make, but forgot.

You do realize that consumer demand does not drive employment, right? Businesses do not look at aggregate demand and decide that there's too little for them to make a new product, or invest in some new venture. They do those things as a means of competing for existing demand. Aggregate demand as a whole has very very very little to do with business decisions or employment decisions. Future profit/cost estimates do. That's why rising debt and the threat of higher taxes will affect employment and why trying to artificially increase demand via wealth transfers is not the solution.

The idea that demand drives industry is a myth that the Left has perpetuated for decades now. It has never shown to be true and whenever we follow the assumptions it leads to economically we nearly always end out ******** ourselves. How about we *not* make this mistake again?

Yes.



Yes, really!

We're talking about "aggregate demand", meaning the total amount of dollars chasing all goods in the whole economy. This does not affect the decision of a company to invest in making a better flat screen TV, or a new flavor of soda. No single business ever deals with the whole aggregate demand of an economy, or even a tiny fraction of the whole. They always think in terms of competing with dollars for other products and getting them to buy their product instead.

As long as there are any dollars out there to buy my products, I'm going to compete for them. Hiring decisions are going to be based on whether hiring more people will allow me to compete better for those dollars. Cost analysis weights that decision. Total consumption dollars in the whole economy really doesn't.

Each business is looking at their own tiny corner of the economy, not at the whole.



Why is it more profitable today than it was 5 years ago though? Think it through.



Why didn't they make that decision before though? As you say, they exist to make a profit. So if unemployment is higher today than it was 4-5 years ago, then that means that something must have changed to make lower employment more profitable today than back then. Or, something has changed to make hiring people less profitable. Gee. I wonder what that could be?


How hard is it to look at a health care bill which mandates higher coverage levels and will increase the cost per employee and conclude that this might just be a factor? How hard is it to look at potentially higher tax rates coming down the line and conclude that those might be a factor as well? Anything that affects the bottom line profits gained by X amount of effort/expense is going to affect that decision. If you make employment more expensive that increases the "cost" side of the profit equation. If you raise taxes, that directly reduces the resulting profit.

Obama and the Democrats are doing both. Drop the partisanship and look at the facts. This isn't even complicated reasoning.

Edited, Sep 2nd 2011 5:18pm by gbaji