I could ask for specifics about what exactly you think Pelosi and Reid did as Speaker and Majority leader between Oct 2007 and Oct 2008 that tanked the stock market so, but we all know you won’t do that.
Is it your opinion that the President should receive credit or blame for stock market gains or losses under their watch? If so, you owe Obama some credit. If not, shut the fuck up.
Apparently, -3 months, since he’s to blame for the stock market declines. Care to give the credit for the stock market increases since 2008 to a future Republican Congress and/or President? This will be your first opportunity to do so.
Not a fan of increasing debt, but I tend to give Presidents 2-3 years of benefit of the doubt before joining in on the hate. Just in time for campaign season.
It’s funny being told not to live in the past by a guy who could barely mention Ted Kennedy without a Chappaquiddick reference, 40 years after the event. Physician, heal thyself. Idiot.
Well, you were the one who said that you thought that “18 months would be enough” to wait before holding Obama “accountable for what’s going on”, without any qualifications.
And you certainly seem to be very eager to find some deadline at which you’ll be able to blame everything on Obama:
It’s not a sidestep. The plain answer, as I already told you, is that Obama never becomes the one at fault for stuff that his predecessor did.
As I said, he’s responsible for coping with the fallout from it as best he can, and he’s certainly responsible for any mistakes that he himself makes. But we will never hit a cutoff date after which you’ll be able to blame Obama for the fact that in 2008 the US economy came closer to a Depression-level crash than it had done for nearly 80 years, and that the consequences of that catastrophe were persistent and far-reaching.
Yeah dude, that was a really principled complaint about the ballooning national debt on your part there. :rolleyes: Way to show off your non-partisan commitment to fiscal responsibility.
And by the way, since you seem to be under an odd delusion that googling doesn’t work late at night, the answer is no, the Bush administration didn’t in fact add $4 billion to the national debt: It was actually $4 TRILLION. :eek:
Actually, doing a simple board search for particular comments by another poster doesn’t really take up much time. At least not for us liberals, who tend to be more intelligent and better at figuring things out.
What is it with you leftie douchebags and calling everyone you disagree with, or who disagrees with you, “idiots” or “morons”? Hell, even James Cameron has picked up the baton. Do they teach that in Commie 101 or something?
There’s an old saying: politics is the art of the possible. Obama has gotten what he could and left the rest for when it is possible. The alternative is an outright loss and all the negatives that go with it. If he had spent that much political capital and lost he’d be finished. He’d be lucky to get anything passed after that.
Um, what James Cameron said, according to your link, is that a lot of people seeing how the Gulf oil spill is playing out have been thinking that the folks at BP are morons because they can’t fix the leak.
I don’t necessarily agree with him on that, but it’s not exactly a “commie” rallying cry.
Similarly, lots of people call lots of other people “idiots” and “morons” for lots of different reasons. I think that if you try to interpret every such remark as a coded leftist slogan, you’ll just end up overexciting yourself.
Yes, calling those who disagree with you “idiots” and “morons” is a very new, unique thing. It’s not what people have done since the inception of language.
This is about the most retarded thing I have read all day. Since Pelosi and Reid took over the House and Senate, respectively, the stock market is down. Therefore, Obama is responsible for the state of the market.
Jesus. Even Rush wouldn’t try something that fucking stupid. Okay, he probably would, but I expected better from you.
I mean, even our dimmest bulb is probably aware that Pelosi and Reid are not Obama. That pretty much renders your argument bullshit even if you don’t even go into Glass-Steagal.
Google operates 24 hours a day. It’s like 7-11 without the muggings.
A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Guess what’s between December 2007 and the middle of 2008? Two quarters.
In any case, it doesn’t matter if the recession could not yet be called in the middle of 2008, because according to my calendar it is now 2010. Shocking.
The wording certainly implies that he also thinks they’re morons. I can’t say I blame him; if you’re going to drill an oil well at 5,000 feet below the surface, you should probably have a method of shutting down oil wells 5,000 feet below the surface ready to go. People who don’t read their own risk management policies are morons.
Exactly my point. Thanks for the bold type on never.
Actually of course I agree with you in extreme cases , like the leadership of Japan or Germany in 1946. But in an essentially centrist country… I dunno
Or it could be that conservatives have to get to sleep so we can go to work the next morning to generate income to pay for the liberals who are on their 99th week of unemployment insurance;)
Sure conservatives care about the environment. I frequently hear them talk about creating a healthy business environment so that they can make more money.
Regarding Obama and the economy. People forget that in late 2008, early 2009 people were seriously considering whether whether we were on the verge of another great depression. The current economy sucks, but I bet if you told people 18th months ago where we would end up today, they would be breathing sighs of relief.
I view Obama as a pilot who brought down a plane with 2 engine fires safely into a corn field and then is being criticized by passengers who twisted their ankle in the landing.
Ah, then you agree with me that it’s absurd and illogical to try to blame Obama specifically for things that Bush did. Fine.
In that case, I can’t help wondering why you were asking so eagerly “At what point does Obama become accountable?”. Looks like you already know the answer: namely, he’s accountable from Day One for the stuff that he himself does or fails to do, and never accountable for the stuff that somebody else did or failed to do.
That’s how job performance evaluation operates in general, so I’m a little surprised you couldn’t figure it out without help in Obama’s case.
But that’s okay, I understand that many conservatives find these more nuanced concepts confusing, and I’m always happy to help explain things to you when you need it.
So sorry that I didn’t spell it out for you better. I was responding to the word never. As in “I can always find a reason to blame Bush for the bad things and give Obama credit for the good things.” I know that’s not exactly what you said, but we’re striving for nuanced here.
Now of course I want to take you up on your offer to learn even higher levels of nuanced thinking. So help me understand the following:
How did Obama show such genius, such ability, such street smarts, such charisma, that he could rescue the stock market the first few weeks in office (which all of his supporters agree is much too early for him to be held accountable for what’s happening), but he hasn’t been able to keep from doubling the unemployment rate?
Bush, who is universally acknowledged as the stupidest person in the history of the universe chose two people - Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke - to run the economy. Yet Obama, who is universally acknowledged to be the greatest genius in the history of the world, has chosen to retain those exact same two people. How can this be?
A smart person knows what he doesn’t know, and doesn’t pretend to. A dumbass relies on his “gut feelings”. Which is really just feminine intuition modified to fit the testosterone-impaired.
Obama couldn’t “take on” Wall Street as it deserves to be taken off, i.e., ripped asunder, root and branch to exterminate the culture of capitalized profit and socialized loss. Even when a revolution is needed, it remains nonetheless destructive. Best he could hope for is to rely on the expertise of others to make reforms that would, in the long run, improve a ghastly situation.
He already had a vast pool of enmity, he could hardly afford to raise up more. After all, where does one find a Marxist MBA?
Ah, I think I see what your basic comprehension problem is here. You’re conflating “things that happened while a Chief Executive was in office” with “things a Chief Executive did”.
Naturally, from that viewpoint, you’re eager to get to the magic “accountability” deadline when you believe you’ll be justified in describing pretty much anything that happens during Obama’s presidency as something that Obama is directly responsible for. (Especially if it’s something you consider bad, of course.)
Sorry to disappoint you, but causality doesn’t actually work that way. Obama doesn’t automatically get credit for every good thing that happens “on his watch” (for instance, as you point out, the stock market “rescue” was not actually his doing), nor does he automatically deserve blame for every bad thing that happens then.
Similarly, not every bad thing that happened under Bush’s administration was Bush’s fault. Bush made enough actual mistakes, irresponsible bad choices, and stupid blunders off his own bat to entitle him to plenty of blame, without blaming him for his bad luck as well.
This may all be a bit too nuanced for you, since all you really seem to care about here is holding Obama “accountable” (i.e., being able to blame him for anything you don’t like), but you asked me to explain it so I did.
In what sense did Bush choose Geithner to run the economy? Geithner was President of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve during Bush’s presidency, and was appointed by the Board of Governors of the New York fed.
President Bush, as far as I am aware, was not a member of said board.
and I’m always happy to help explain things to you when you need it.
I was responding to the word never. As in “I can always find a reason to blame Bush for the bad things and give Obama credit for the good things.” I know that’s not exactly what you said, but we’re striving for nuanced here.