It probably sounds ridiculous to liberals, but personally, I wouldn't really be surprised if this wasn't totally inaccurate. (I didn't watch this particular video, but I know who this guy is and what he thinks)

Edit: And if it did, it wouldn't be Obama's fault, he'd just be responsible for furthering the problem. A lot.

You sig fits well here Chewbubba!

>Fox.
My god, he's making wanking motions.

Empty Minimalls?! The working class and students eschewing apathy and getting involved?!!

My word, it'd be terrible.

I want some optimism opium

Clearly Obama shares in the blame. Making an observation like the fact that the fixed investment cycle is around 11 years long would be a waste of time now that we've accepted the truth.

We don't have time to discuss faggy liberal ideas like a 15 year long deflationary cycle or the socioeconomic problems inherent in making corporate executives culpable to their shareholders under tort law or the flawed regulations installed by Reagan and Bush Sr. that allowed investment banks to become publicly-traded. We're far too busy burning the sitting president in effigy. Because a scapegoat saves us the effort of thinking.

OMG 2012!!

Oh noes, America isn't going to be the economic centre of the world anymore! It's happened to other places before, we got over it.

but china scares me

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Economics is hard. I barely understand any of what you just said. And sometimes I get the feeling that most of the people controlling this stuff aren't much better off than I am in that department. That scares me.

When I grow up, I want to be an "economist." I think I'll start by bashing my face into a wall.

He's predicting gang warfare.

I think he needs to visit Oakland sometime.

I think he's predicting that every city will be like Oakland less than a decade from now. I assume this means Oakland would be like Afghanistan. Well, Afghanistan with BART. So, like GTA4?

The real problem with blaming Obama is that it supposes that Mcain wouldn't be doing the exact same damn thing, and forgets that Bush did do the exact same thing at the end of his term. The differences between Obama's and Mcain's economic policy are all semantic bull****. The Republicans who liked Bush or Mcain and are now crying about Obama, are morons and would be cheering for the same policies if Mcain had been elected. It's the same with the Democrats. No one really give a **** about anything further than the team they're on; everything else is just pointless rationalization and bickering. People are morons and deserve every last bit of the recession.

Umm, no, Obama isn't absolved of his part just because Bush and McCain did/would have done the same things. However, you are right about the stupid Republican/Democrat warfare.

Clearly, you did not get his point. A lot of the problems with our economy were caused by Republican policies. However, conservatives are blaming liberals for the problems caused by their idols (Reaganomics anyone?). Jon'C is just pointing out the irony of it all.

Oh, no, I got the point, and I completely agree. Republicans and Democrats alike sometimes seem to be about as good at economics as I am, which is scary. Don't forget, I'm a conservative, not a Republican.

Actually Bush did something a whole lot worse at the end of his term, and McCain would probably have been just as bad.

All of the media uproar about Obama's "oh my god so huge" almost $499 billion stimulus package (not including tax cuts) is just a red herring so people will forget about the $700 billion cash blank check Bush wrote Wall Street. By the time Obama was inaugurated, over $400 billion had already been distributed to financial institutions with zero obligations or guidelines for how the money was supposed to be spent.

(Not that it would have mattered much, since the basis of AIG's legal argument for issuing such huge bonuses was that money is not fungible, which is a pretty scary claim for a financial institution.)

But. Isn't it's fungibility the whole point of currency?

Sure, but you're assuming that our currency has any value to be interchanged.

Makes you wonder why they needed a bailout, doesn't it?

No, I already knew why.

This is why.

Yeah, I completely agree with the Republican's hypocrisy in this case. I always find myself saying the exact same thing when reading about the current spending extravaganza. While personally I'm glad that they are against it, it's a bit hypocritical.

Reaganomics is definitely a tough cookie to crack. Reaganomics was basically tax cuts, and smaller government. Now defined,

You CANNOT blame Reaganomics for the current crisis. There is just as much blame to the Presidents, as well as MORE IMPORTANTLY the Fed, for encouraging risky lending and making such a god damn fuss about owning a home that certainly did not help the risky lending part. Fed Funds Rate policies did not help when inflating the housing bubble, and the housing crash was just the first step towards the current crisis. That if anything, is more of a primary cause than the Reagan legacy of yesteryear. I agree that Reagan's history of deficit spending does live on, though (as evidence by our current and last President).

Also, Reaganomics as it was originally intended (smaller taxes, less government) never really was instituted. So you cannot say whether it truly works (I believe it does, but that's just my opinion on economic policy). Political will basically prevented the second part of Reagonomics, small government, from ever taking effect, thus tarnishing a lot of it. Also, one could make an argument that a lot of the deficit spending was for military during the Cold War, a particular more unstable time than today. A lot of people credit Reagan for "outspending" the Russians, which would be a good thing.

The data is shifty on his tax revenues still. There were certain programs that saw some substantial tax revenue increase after tax cuts, and then also neutral and losses. In the longer run though the American economy experienced incredible growth. The problem is that he was just spending a HELLUVA lot more money on defense and government. His economic policies in terms of the laffer curve theory were for the majority sound. He was getting more tax revenue from lower taxes at certain points. He just failed miserably on the more political side of it.