What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[4est_4est_Gump]

There are at least four posters on the last page who cannot make an argument for what they believe in, so they must focus on those who are getting the economy right with things like, A_J puts his dogs on the car roof, koala has never worked a day in his life, vette once gave a hippie a haircut...,

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Vperyod!

The degree to which Marxist rhetoric -- the most militant of all modern socialist ideologies -- pervades Western public policy and discourse is shocking. It is both amusing and disturbing to see so many politicians, conservatives, and progressives, but mostly the last of these, make a show of rejecting doctrinaire socialism and then, in the next breath, draw upon explicitly Marxist frames to support their socialist or socialistic agendas. Let me offer several examples:

First, progressives who argue against capitalism or its proxies -- e.g., Wall Street, Big Oil, the top 1% of income-earners -- often do so by employing the Marxist trope, illustrated below in a quotation taken from the Marxist bible, The Communist Manifesto, that suggests that acquisition of the fruits of a capitalistic system makes for a zero-sum game (emphasis added):

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.1

Second, the idea that capitalism is an irredeemably antagonistic system that pits the bourgeoisie against the proletariat2 (i.e., the 1% against the 99%) is central to the Marxist (and progressive) narrative, as is the idea that workers are habitually exploited3 by a capital class that is determined to appropriate more than it "needs" and possesses a values system that makes it incompatible with society at large4.

Third, the notion that the proletariat is helplessly subject to "the vicissitudes of competition"5 and that, therefore, their only recourse is to sell themselves like commodities derives from the broader Marxist tableau that depicts workers as honorable and essential members of a society subject to decay and ultimately eradication in the face of modern industry6. This ethos serves as the basis for much of the populist and class warfare rhetoric common today.

Fourth, when Marx and Engels deride "[t]he bourgeois claptrap about the family ... about the hallowed correlation between parent and child"7 and how the bourgeois "is not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians" and "take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives,"8 they presage a line of attack against individuals, and often conservatives, who espouse family values.

Fifth, the bias in favor of the urban and academically credentialed mimics a chauvinism present in Marxist thought, and one that remains largely a phenomenon of the left. Economist Thomas Sowell observes that "Marx repeatedly disdained the capitalist entrepreneur as an uncultured 'parvenu' -- someone lacking bookish accomplishments, as if these were the universal litmus tests of contributions to society"9. Engels and Lenin likewise believed that "managing a business was only a trivial skill"10. And Marx and Engels wrote that urbanization has rescued many from what they deemed "the idiocy of rural life"11.

Suffice it to say that much of the modern progressive idiom owes quite a bit to Marx and Engels. Not to quasi-Marxists or Neo-Marxists, but rather classical Marxist theory.

However, while many are willing to employ such rhetoric to decry capitalism, most understand that open support of socialist ideologies remains a losing strategy. These self-styled technocrats reject the extremists of the left and right and instead advocate a "third way," a non-ideological midpoint between capitalism and socialism that emphasizes realism, pragmatism, and "what works."

President Obama has repeatedly been given credit for staking out such a position. See this, this and this.

However, this "third way" approach also has its root in classical Marx. In other words, when progressives seek to deflect charges of socialism, very often their principal defense is yet another invocation of Marxist thought. Ludwig von Mises in The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality explains:

When Marx and Engels ... advocated definite interventionist measures, they did not mean to recommend a compromise between socialism and capitalism. They considered these measures -- incidentally, the same measures which are today the essence of the New Deal and Fair Deal policies -- as first steps on the way toward the establishment of full communism.12

Here is the relevant quotation from Marx and Engels (emphasis added):

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.13

So when The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson writes that "American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism," he is chronicling and indeed cheering on an explicitly Marxist game plan.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/forward_just_wellforward.html#ixzz1uej6kCD7

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Lighter Side of Economics

Keep the Laffer Curve in mind as we turn our attention to the astounding recent political transformation of comedian Jon Lovitz. On April 23, a recording of a Lovitz comedy routine savagely criticizing Obama’s “bullsh*t” class warfare rhetoric went viral on the Internet, and before long Lovitz was cropping up everywhere, in great demand as the spokesman for everyone disgusted by Obama’s claims that high earners “don’t pay their fair share” in taxes. And this is coming from a self-described Democrat who voted for Obama.

Most significantly, Lovitz claims that many of his fellow Hollywood liberals agree with him but are too afraid too say it publicly.

And then it struck me. Wealthy Hollywood liberals just love to skewer evil corporate fat cats and country-club Republicans, and up until now no one had encountered a limit to their enthusiasm for leftist class warfare rhetoric. And then…Obama went too far, and suddenly it got personal.

I realized that the principles behind the Laffer Curve also apply to the economic and political relationship between Democratic politicians and the Hollywood elite. Wealthy West Coast liberals will cheer on and swoon over any politician who engages in overheated class warfare rhetoric — up until a certain point, when it suddenly dawns on them that the rhetoric is aimed directly at themselves. Then very quickly their donations, fundraisers and helpful propagandizing start to dry up as the radical rhetoric begins to threaten them personally.

Just as in a Laffer Curve, Revenue and Support from Hollywood (RASH) is at a minimum for any politician who (like President Reagan, for example) doesn’t engage in talk of class warfare and refuses to demonize the rich; but it would also be at a minimum for any politician who’s so extreme (like Lenin, for example) that he’s likely to forcibly confiscate all the money and mansions of the wealthy Hollywood hypocrites. Somewhere in the middle, there is a perfect “sweet spot” for class warfare rhetoric that ensures maximum RASH – strong enough rhetoric to demonstrate your liberalism, but not so strong as to go “the full Vladimir.”

All this can be explained more clearly in a new graph. And so I hereby present: The Lovitz Curve:

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/05/11/the-lovitz-curve/?singlepage=true

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Still going with the "Red Scare" tactics Cap'n?

What a pant-load..

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Add a fifth to that list mentioned at the top of this page...




When's the economy going to take off U_D?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If the Tea Party isn't dead yet, it needs to be put down for what it did to Congress in 2010.

Yeah, it did one damned good job at clearing out the Democrats best friends, the RINOs, the moderates, those who could be counted on to accept the Democrat framing of every issue, reach across the aisle, and compromise a bit more to the Left.


Hot Steeping Tea
By Jay Clarke
May 12, 2012

Despite media obituaries proclaiming their demise, the Tea Party is alive and well. And highly energized. Like with Mark Twain, the reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

The resounding defeat of Indiana's six-term Senator Richard Lugar by primary challenger and Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock is proof positive that the Tea Party has not been sleeping.

Just...steeping.

...

The Tea Party movement is no flash in the pan. It is not a fad, and it is not temporary. It is American patriotism and citizenship on fire. And it will continue to grow in strength and influence because it is born of the American people, stoked by a love of country and fanned by a deep yearning for liberty.

As the movement grows, expect to hear the same dire predictions and "woe is me" coming from liberals, progressives, media outlets, and moderate Republican policymakers. Just as they did two years ago, they'll mourn the good old days when Republicans were known for their "bipartisanship" and willingness to compromise rather than their loyalty to the Constitution.

The socialist left and the Republican establishment have a lot to lose in this election. They may even join forces as they suddenly realize that they have much more in common with each other than either would have believed.

They both seek power. They both seek wealth and influence. Their primary motivation is self-preservation. And they share a common, dreaded adversary.

A Constitution-wielding American public.

Washington political elites resent the restrictions placed upon them by those pesky, fading documents housed at the National Archives. Those Charters of Freedom: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Sacred texts of the American people. American scripture.

They're an obstacle to change. A maddening inconvenience, and a thorn in the side for many politicians. Revisit the town hall meetings held across America in 2010. Remember the shock and awe as squirming politicians were held to account by their constituents and forced to constitutionally justify their actions? Remember the look of bewilderment? The palpable sense of fear? The contempt from some of the nation's most lauded legislators?

They still feel the same way.

They fear that 2010 could happen all over again.

And rightly so.

Today, the American people remain a powerful force. Citizens' voices have immense influence. Because of the Tea Party, a more mature and seasoned citizenry will make their presence known in the halls of Congress. Their voices will be heard loud and clear in the West Wing and beyond. In state houses and local governments. In national capitals the world over. And for a long time to come.

The Tea Party did not just have a "comeback" in Indiana. The fact is that they never left in the first place. They've been working. Watching and waiting for the chance to make their wishes known. They are eager. Excited. And dedicated to their cause. The cause of a free nation and a free people.

Politicians of both parties should take notice. To ignore the Tea Party is to tempt fate and to risk being thrown overboard, like former Senator Richard Lugar, and like those 342 crates -- some 45 tons -- of English tea floating in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773.

In 1773, tea was America's drink. Not so today. Coffee has become America's caffeinated drink of choice. Whether it's a $5 latte or an old-fashioned cup o' joe, coffee is everywhere. Fast and convenient. Gulp and go.

Tea is a different thing altogether.

Tea is a beverage of calm. Of culture. It cannot be rushed. It takes time, heat, and patience to develop its full potential. The longer it steeps, the deeper, stronger, more complex, and more robust it becomes.

Tea just takes time.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Add a fifth to that list mentioned at the top of this page...




When's the economy going to take off U_D?

Where'd all the bets go???

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Add a fifth to that list mentioned at the top of this page...




When's the economy going to take off U_D?

Keep your eyes wide shut Cap'n.

After two years you're still bleating about the destruction that's just around the corner.

Meanwhile, we've been rebuilding slowly from the economic ruin left by 8 years of "conservative" economic principles.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Where'd all the bets go???

You feel like making your wager on the Presidential race yet Cap'n?

Finally feeling the strength of your convictions? Do you actually think Romney has a snowball's chance?

Wait, wasn't your last cop out that you didn't want to reveal your "real identity". As if there aren't a hundred ways to place your wager anonymously.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Keep your eyes wide shut Cap'n.

After two years you're still bleating about the destruction that's just around the corner.

Meanwhile, we've been rebuilding slowly from the economic ruin left by 8 years of "conservative" economic principles.

No, after two years I am patiently still pointing out that we are in a Lost Decade while posting the Doom and Gloom articles that you were sure were no longer going to be written because the summer of recovery was on the way, we were headed for 5% unemployment this summer and Obama was going to be swept into a second term in a landslide that would have us saying, Ronnie WHO?

Slowly is looking like backsliding the last couple of weeks...

The last two of those "eight" years were Democrat principles beginning with the almost automatic increase in minimum wage, which, as we said at the time, would be a breaking force on the economy...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You feel like making your wager on the Presidential race yet Cap'n?

Finally feeling the strength of your convictions? Do you actually think Romney has a snowball's chance?

Wait, wasn't your last cop out that you didn't want to reveal your "real identity". As if there aren't a hundred ways to place your wager anonymously.

You had better go read you some James Carville and maybe some polls...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Positive Interference of Government, von Humboldt

The root of Texas' electrical problems goes back to the bad old days of federal price controls of natural gas and the years Texas and Louisiana spent being exploited by the rest of the nation.

It all began in the 1920s, when improved welding techniques made it possible to build pipelines to carry the methane that was regarded as a waste product of oil production to northern cities to be burned for home heating and cooking. At the time, methane was made from coal and called "town gas," manufactured at the "gas house," a place rough and ready that earned the St. Louis Cardinals the nickname of the "gas house gang." Like other public services, gashouses had been granted municipal monopolies and they weren't too happy when pipeline companies showed up from Texas selling a new product we still today call "natural gas." So the municipally regulated gas utilities did what companies do -- they pressured to have the pipelines put under regulation as well.

As you might expect, the regulation soon expanded. Northern municipalities liked the idea of being able to tell pipelines that originated in Texas what they could charge for their gas. When the New Deal arrived, the whole thing was put under the jurisdiction of the new Federal Power Commission, the forerunner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Now the power of the federal government was behind the price controls. Still, the FPC could only regulate interstate pipelines. It couldn't tell the thousands of wildcat operations all over Texas and Louisiana what to charge for their gas. But soon northern attorneys general were at work on the problem, arguing in the courts that the entire network of dozens of pipelines and thousands of individual wells constituted a vast "monopoly." They kept plugging away until finally in 1954 in Phillips Petroleum vs. Wisconsin the Supreme Court ruled that FERC had the power to set the price of gas at the point where it entered the pipeline. Gas prices would now be set by politics alone, with the heavily populated northern states holding the upper hand.

Soon the District of Columbia Federal Court was managing the entire gas industry, developing such concepts as the "life-of-the-field doctrine," which said that once gas was put in interstate commerce it couldn't be withdrawn, even if the price no longer covered its costs. Even if you went bankrupt, you were obliged to keep sending gas to northern consumers until the well expired. There was one escape route, however. If you never put gas into an interstate pipeline, you were free to sell at a market rate in your home state. And so by the early 1970s, northern homeowners were waiting up to six months to be hooked into the local gas company while utilities in Texas were generating more than half their electricity with gas -- which was regarded as extremely wasteful at the time.

All this came to a head after the Arab Oil Embargo of 1974. As northern homes and businesses tried desperately to convert to gas, shortages appeared. During the frigid winter of 1977, schools and factories in Pennsylvania and Ohio were forced to close for weeks for lack of fuel. The Carter Administration, in office only a few weeks, was appalled to discover that people in the north were freezing to death while Texas was generating more than half its electricity with gas. So it proposed a simple solution -- extend the price controls into Texas as well! It was at this point that bumper stickers started appearing in Texas and Louisiana proclaiming, "Let the Yankees Freeze in the Dark."

The Reagan Administration eventually straightened all this out, deregulating the price of natural gas in 1988 and setting off a long-delayed boom in exploration. But Texas had learned its lesson -- when it comes to energy, have as little to do with the rest of the country as possible. This is the reason there are very few electrical transmission lines running across the Texas border. ERCOT, the Texas grid, is almost completely isolated from the rest of the country. Having been raided for its natural gas resources for decades, the state was determined it would not be raided for electricity.

What Texas did not count on, however, was the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and all the other federal bureaucracies that would soon arrive telling it what to do. Four years ago, TXU, the state's largest power producer, had plans to built 11 coal plants to meet the demands of the state's growing economy. Meeting with mounting opposition from environmental groups and the EPA, however, TXU sold out to KKR, a New York investment firm, which brought in the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the country's leading environmental groups, to sanction the deal. KKR immediately canceled 8 of the 11 coal projects and announced it would pursue alternative energy instead.

The situation did not seem completely lost, since in 2007 NRG Energy, another of the nation's leading merchant energy providers, had become the first company in 30 years to file an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new reactors. NRG CEO David Crane openly embraced nuclear and defended it in many public forums. But getting through NRC license application procedures was a different story. As the years dragged on, CPS Energy, the municipally owned utility of San Antonio, pulled out of the project. Then one month after Fukushima, when it became obvious the NRC would be posing all kinds of new delays, NRG threw in the towel. When last seen, the company was building solar panels in the Mojave Desert, guaranteed a profit by California's renewable portfolio mandates. "I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects," Crane told the New York Times in an interview last November. "It is just filling the desert with panels."

And so Texas will face the heat this summer with little more going for it than it did last summer, when the state came within a few hundred megawatts of overloading the entire state grid. Calpine has promised a new 240-MW gas plant but that won't be ready until 2014. Regulators have indicated that they may ease up on peak price limits but producers are still wary. It costs $1/2 million per MW to build new capacity with no guarantee that it can sell electricity full time. Highly subsidized windmills, which can deliver electricity practically for free when the wind blows, are constantly cutting into the profits of other generating stations.

Texas remains by far the most energy-productive state in the union. Yet constant intervention by the federal government may yet manage to turn it into one of the biggest potential energy disasters as well.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/11/it-will-be-hot-in-texas-this-s


"Look, if you do this, you're not gonna be hurting Big Oil; you're gonna be hurting employment in my state. You people in Michigan, yeah, go ahead. You complain all you want about the gasoline price. What are you doing to contribute to our energy in this country? Your state doesn't do anything for energy. But we here in Louisiana, we contribute. We have all kind of things.

"We have a lot of jobs. We have a lot of companies, a lot of businesses here that are devoted to producing and providing energy for this whole country, and I resent this notion of being singled out."
Mary Landrieu (D)

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You had better go read you some James Carville and maybe some polls...

So that's a "No" then?

Color me unsurprised that you lack conviction.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So that's a "No" then?

Color me unsurprised that you lack conviction.

I'm voting for Obama because there is no way you've learned your economic lesson yet.

The problem for you is that too many of those in the center were actually touched by Obama's economic policies and while giving him the benefit of the doubt and excepting the mantra, it's the Republican's fault, have now come to believe, because they weren't as secure in their jobs as you were, that Obama is actually worse than Bush and 2010 was the canary in the coal mine.

I really hope that you get the President you desire, but wonder how much angier you can get should the RINO Mitt Romeny win...

Something once directed at you specifically:

I bitched about Bush for six years, and through all that time the Republicans on this board never trashed me the way the Democrats do now that "their guy" is "in charge."

They were angry when Bush was President, but they seem even more angry now that Obama is President.

Maybe it's just disappointment.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Follow your own link back Cap'n Hayseed. That comment was not directed at "me specifically", but to Saint Peter.. This, like most of your nonsense, is just a false assertion.

Now run along and find yet another op ed to back your POV and act as if it' "fact".

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

IT's the ECONOMY STUPID!!!

Election: Remember how candidate Barack Obama complained in 2008 that any discussion not involving the economy was a "distraction"? This time, his entire campaign is built on distracting voters from the economy.

During his 2008 campaign, one of Obama's favorite words was "distraction." He constantly plugged it into his speeches and interviews to dismiss any controversy that might have erupted, or an issue he didn't particularly want to talk about.

Questions about how Obama could have sat in the pews and listened to Rev. Wright's anti-American, race-baiting screeds for years? Distraction. Questions about his relationship with radical Bill Ayers? Distraction. Questions about his qualifications to be president? Distraction.

Typically, Obama would follow up by talking about how we need to focus instead on "the real issues." Here's just a small sampling of Obama quotes:

• "You could see race bubbling up in a way that was distracting from the issues that I think are so important to America right now." March 2008

• "We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we'd see of the politics we're trying to end — the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter." March 2008

• "It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics." April 2008

• " Yes, we know what's coming. ... The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along." May 2008

• "When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people." July 2008

• "Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. ... I'm going to keep talking about the issues that matter — about the economy and health care and education and energy." October 2008

Obama even used the distraction gambit to challenge actual policies.

In 2002, for example, in his speech against the Iraq war, Obama said it was just an "attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income."

He even complained about the entire gay marriage issue in his "Audacity of Hope" book, saying that "the heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination of gays and lesbians."

http://news.investors.com/article/611227/201205111844/obama-launches-campaign-of-distraction.htm

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Follow your own link back Cap'n Hayseed. That comment was not directed at "me specificly", but to Saint Peter.. This, like most of your nonsense, is just a false assertion.

Now run along and find yet another op ed to back your POV and act as if it' "fact".

Prove it.

I mean, the way you proved the economy was in rebound when this thread began...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Prove it.

I mean, the way you proved the economy was in rebound when this thread began...

Prove it? Click your own link nimrod. Byron made that comment in response to a post by Saint Peter, not to me specifically.

Good lord, hangover much?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Prove it? Click your own link nimrod. Byron made that comment in responce to a post by Saint Peter, not to me specifically.

Good lord, hangover much?

Wo ist diss imaginary link vich you speak von...?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Wo ist diss imaginary link vich you speak von...?

For fuck's sake, really?

Scroll on back up to where you quoted Byron. See that little arrow thingy to the right of his name. click that..

I bitched about Bush for six years, and through all that time the Republicans on this board never trashed me the way the Democrats do now that "their guy" is "in charge."

They were angry when Bush was President, but they seem even more angry now that Obama is President.

Maybe it's just disappointment.

You seriously don't know that is a link to the post you're quoting.

Fucking hell, and you been here HOW LONG?

Cap'n Moron..

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In trying to figure out whether we’ve reached a “new normal” it is helpful to consider a counter argument.

A quick look at productivity numbers shows that the economy has actually seen a rise in output since the end of the recession in 2009. The graph below shows that whether you measure output per hour of work, output per worker, or output in general, all metrics show an increase. But this is at the same time as falling labor force participation and stagnant GDP growth. So the weak economy is not because of the decline of the labor force cutting into productivity, but likely has more to do with soft demand (as Paul Krugman and Lawrence Summers would argue).

The problem with this argument is that it assumes we couldn’t be more productive then we are today. To drive the American economy out of this recession we need to be even more productive then the trend at present. Merely returning to roughly the same trendline seen before the recession is not enough for a real recovery.

We can see this more visibly by looking at the output gap, that is, the difference between what the American economy is capable of producing, and what we are producing. The following graph shows what the St. Louis Federal Reserve projects as the inflation adjusted potential capacity of GDP growth over the past few decades and what inflation adjusted GDP growth has actually been.



Economic growth and productivity are clearly not only dependent on labor force participation. Ideally, productivity is growing from expanded production of goods, growing consumption, and innovation. Recent productivity is being driven more by efficiency gains (output per hour of work has been increasing post-recession) than new products, which is part of the reason that the output gap remains.

The story of the recovery certainly gets more complicated when considering the host of non-labor factors influencing the economy — such as national debt, household debt, monetary policy, innovation, income stagnation, rising health care costs, etc. However, as Stock and Watson have pointed out, there is a very real impact on economic growth from a declining labor force.

Ironically, the growing productivity numbers actually help make the case that the labor market and economy could be setting into a “new normal” pattern. Consider that growing productivity despite high unemployment does not create incentives for firms to hire. A circular problem then develops where the productivity from efficiency gains leads to weak hiring practices pushing labor force participation further down, which in turn leads to more output gains coming from efficiency rather than economic expansion.

This cycle can be broken, and perhaps it will in the coming years. However, the Congressional Budget Office suggested earlier this year that because the labor force decline is so “unusually large decline over so short a time,” it does not anticipate the situation will change for at least another five years.

See charts:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/10/high-unemployment-the-new-normal/print


Now, what drives productivity gains?

Capital Investment.

What dries up Capital Investment?

Taxing as a penalty in the name of fairness or the expansion of government for social justice.

Why did the co-founder of Facebook cross the ocean?

To keep his Capital alive.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I bitched about Bush for six years, and through all that time the Republicans on this board never trashed me the way the Democrats do now that "their guy" is "in charge."

They were angry when Bush was President, but they seem even more angry now that Obama is President.

Maybe it's just disappointment.

Click on the link and show me what you get.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now we know why we're hearing about 1965 Romney...

WASHINGTON — Americans are growing more pessimistic about the economy and handling it remains President Barack Obama's weak spot and biggest challenge in his bid for a second term, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

And the gloomier outlook extends across party lines, including a steep decline in the share of Democrats who call the economy "good," down from 48 percent in February to just 31 percent now.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47385886/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/#.T65mXBzUrPx

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Click on the link and show me what you get.

Are you fucking impared in some way? I mean moreso than usual?

The quote you keep linking is a post to SaintPeter from Byron, Cap'n Dumbass. Clicking the link takes me to the same place it takes you.

Edit Specifically. here

 

[richard_daily]

One of the reasons....a slight pull-back, it was needed.

"it was needed", but if Obama flushes the toilet and the dow moves 1 point, you're all over it for being...


wait for it...








SOCIALISM!!!!!