We told you so

Posted by: Barthélemy Barbancourt

Tagged in: Untagged 

The U.S. economy stumbled badly in the first half of 2011 and came dangerously close to contracting in the January-March period,

The economy grew at a 1.3 percent annual pace in the second quarter after expanding just 0.4 percent in the first three months of the year. First-quarter growth was revised from the previously reported 1.9 percent increase.

No sane person can maintain that Obama is economically competent. His policies have failed and in many cases have made things worse. The time has come to repeal Obamacare and start a campaign of massive deregulation. I wonder if we can afford another year and a half of this disaster of a president?

Trackback(0)
Comments (20)add comment
jk noreen
If we survive as a nation to November, 2012...
written by jokin , July 29, 2011

the lessons learned from letting the baby boomers (mis)-govern us will hopefully force the electorate to face up to the fact that the inherent conflicts of interest these boomers have in continuing to prop up their various Ponzi Schemes utterly disqualifies baby boomers from leading the country ever again. You know you've reached a political dead-end when 60s radicals now form the philosophical basis for the current "mainstream" Democrat party and in opposition, the Republicans have replaced traditional Dem viewpoints as the "Party of the State". These selfish, self-absorbed, navel-gazers have to be overthrown and utterly quashed from meaningful debate. Repubs have guys like Rubio, Ryan, Walker and Christie ready to lead the country in a new direction. I don't know the names of the Democrats that could lead the party away from the radial precipice, but I have no doubt they will come from the State Governments and will be minus an Ivy League "education".


DutchPrisoner
No sane person
written by DutchPrisoner , July 30, 2011

I reject your very premise that Obama -- or any president -- can find an orderly way out of the economic disaster that preceded his term. Only once you acknowledge that the hand he was dealt was worse than any president has had since Roosevelt in 1932 can we discuss his "competency." Lots of evidence says that his policies has prevented catastrophe even though they haven't created the growth you want. But your wishes are based on impatience and a skewed perception of reality. The one thing I know for sure is that the policies of today's Republican's would only bring us closer to a banana republic, which would be OK for a small minority of people and terrible for the rest of us.


Jonny Texas
Hey new guy! Welcome aboard!
written by Jonny Texas , July 31, 2011

DutchPrisoner - is there a back story to that one? It has possibilities.

Two points:

1. So since you are wanting to cut the president a break for the issues he had to deal with I am sure you are willing to cut G.W. a big break for the issues that got dropped into his lap. Tech bubble, accounting failures, 9/11, hostile right wing groups, never ending Iraq commitment. All of those things were dropped into his lap from the previous administration so I am sure you never criticize him either.

2. The first thing about crisis management is stopping the damage. The original post was not aboutthe failures of the current president to turn the US into a rapidly building utopia where everything was hunky dory. But one where the damage stopped occurring. Things are significantly worse now than on inauguration day. He had two years with total control of all three arms of the government to implement essentially anything his little heart desired and the major accomplishment was a insurance scheme that at best was highly contentious and at worst needed to be crammed down the electorates throats.



Woody
...
written by Woody , July 31, 2011

Celebrating economic failure while at he same time doing nothing aboutr it will backfire Bart. So "yay Obama is failing" will continue to be your drumbeat; for a short while at least. Enjoy your moment Bart.


Nobody
Woodhead
written by Nobody , July 31, 2011

Read some history. Hoover signed Hawley-Smoot handing FDR a minor recession that he turned into The Great Depression. PBO is trying to do the same thing. This econ will not recover until we get the EPA et al off the backs of bidness.

JT, when will we close our bases in europe? Will the Franc's and Germans devolve into war again if we do?

We recovered when Truman de-militarised, not during WWII, when even Butter was rationed.

Get us out of the 2 "W" wars and Libia.

Oh welcome Dutch. Hope you can take the heat here.



Woody
Nowhere man
written by Woody , August 01, 2011

I agree we should get out of the three wars. In regards to Obama trying to create a depression or otherwise destroy the Country, what exactly is his motivation for doing so? This claim is made repeatedly here that Obama is trying to in some way destroy the Country but no motive is really given that I have seen. Is he running in 2012 on a destroy the Country platform? Also, the Act that Pres. Hoover signed was the Hoot-Smalley act. smilies/smiley.gif



Barthélemy Barbancourt
I partially agree
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , August 01, 2011

The Pelosi Reid Congress coupled with Bush's exhaustion after 8 years of Compassionate Conservatism did lay the groundwork for the economy Barry O inherited.

The problem is great Presidents don't whine, they make things better. Reagan got a nation on the downturn and turned it around. Barry O hasn't.

Woody, Until enough people realize that Barry has failed, it is my job to remind everyone that I stated long ago that Barry's version of Keynesian economics was bound to fail. I'm trying to educate people on how the real world works, so the next time some snake oil salesman runs for president, they might have the knowledge to reject their empty rhetoric and lies.

Barry actually believes the socialist ideals that emanate from academia. His ignorance of basic economics is one of his biggest faults (along with his massive ego)

The other thing I will be doing to help is to work to get Barry O and his Democrats defeated in 2012 and try to get a pro-business, pro-private sector job President, Senate and Congress elected. If you really wanted things to get better for the poor, you would too.



Nobody
Woodhead
written by Nobody , August 01, 2011

FDR was a socialist dictator, get over it. Four terms? Really? FDR was a Prez at
a time when the world was full of dictators, they were going to make the world more "fair". Hitler, Musollini, Stalin, FDR all cut from the same cloth.

We need to follow Canada's lead and cut, first the EPA by about 40%.



Barthélemy Barbancourt
Require a cost analysis
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , August 01, 2011

The trouble with the EPA is everyone likes clean air and water, but they never talk about costs.

Would you like the levels of arsenic in your water to go from 10 PPB to 5 PPB? OK, how about if that doubles your water bill?

If we required every EPA rule and Law to have implementations costs attached, we could slow down and even stop some of the business killing regulations.

We also need to attack any law that references carbon reductions or global warming. These lies can't be used as justifications for any increased costs to businesses. Al Gore is a joke, but his damage lives on in hundreds of laws and rules about carbon emissions.



Nobody
...
written by Nobody , August 01, 2011

No one wants dirty air and water. But the Greenies have moved the goal posts so far that you can't meet some standards. Back in the day I went to a speech on DDT, The speaker began by taking a spoonful of DDT. Freaked us all out. The devil is in the dose and that was his point. Newt tried to put in cost-benefit rules, but the EPA found a way around them.


Barthélemy Barbancourt
This is why one of the founders of GreenPeace quit
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , August 01, 2011

The founder of Greenpeace was a scientist. He left as the Enviro-movement is more emotion than science.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of the environmental organization Greenpeace, isn’t too hot about global warming. Appearing on Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney on Thursday, he said global warming is a “natural phenomenon,” there’s no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that “alarmism” is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies.

There are acceptable levels of poisons and we should waste billions trying to get to an impossibly low number just to keep the enviro-jackoffs happy.



Nobody
...
written by Nobody , August 01, 2011

Try to get a big fish steak. the Mercury levels have been raised so high that you can't find them. And of course the mercury comes from coal burning.


Jonny Texas
Nobody
written by Jonny Texas , August 01, 2011

"JT, when will we close our bases in europe? Will the Franc's and Germans devolve into war again if we do?"

Couldn't agree more. Logistical support bases? Sure, no problem. Stationed combat forces creating transfer payments to countries that are and have been security parasites for the last 40 years? Nope. Europe needs to pay it's own way when it comes to defense. Joint deployments and training can take place on temporary basis no permanent commitment needs to be maintained, the Soviets are not coming.



Nobody
...
written by Nobody , August 01, 2011

The Fulda Gap was important when tanks were the cats meow. They're not anymore. Keeping a base or two I could see. To launch aircraft and submarines. The social welfare states of europe have been funded by almost no military spending.


Barthélemy Barbancourt
Don't forget Japan and S. Korea
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , August 01, 2011

Both are able to pay their own way for defense. We need to withdraw from the Korean Peninsula and from Japan. The military has let too many engagements continue without serious review.

I agree that we keep any strategic supply bases that we might need, but Europe can start to fund their own defense. NATO needs a requirement for membership that a certain percentage of GDP goes towards the military. The socialists in Europe have had a free ride for decades and the time for them to pay for their own defense has come.



Jonny Texas
...
written by Jonny Texas , August 01, 2011

"We need to withdraw from the Korean Peninsula and from Japan."

Bart, I couldn't disagree more.

China and N. Korea really are threats unlike the ghosts of the Soviets.

In the Pacific an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and a large forward deployed force keeps the locals in check and are a hell of a lot cheaper than actually shooting. the commitment is mostly naval and air not expensive army units. Keeping them there is actually doing something.

"Keeping a base or two I could see. To launch aircraft and submarines."

The subs are all nukes, port facilities that can provide security for a port call an to provide fresh vittles is about all you could need.

The Aorfprce needs three things to start bombing with tactical aircraft.
1. Ramp space for parking
2. Runway
3. Water
we can do the rest our selves. Anything else you can give us just makes it less expensive and faster. You do not need a permanent presence, just a ramp space at friendly bases and you can be flying combat sorties in 24 hours.

For bombers all you need is targets. 2 B-2';s flying out of Whiteman AFB Mo. can deliver as much tonnage in a 24 hour period as a carrier battle group any where on the face of the planet. Explosions can happen in 18 hours from go.

Out of Europe, maintain in the Pacific.





Nobody
JT
written by Nobody , August 01, 2011

The Chicoms are not going to attack the US, we are thier biggest customer. The Norks ? Nah.


Jonny Texas
You're right.
written by Jonny Texas , August 01, 2011

You are right they will not attack our forces, but they will use their military to intimidate their neighbors. Power projection and deterrent are WAY cheaper than crisis management.


Nobody
...
written by Nobody , August 01, 2011

What 1000 nuke missels pointed at them isn't deterent enough ?


jk noreen
...
written by jokin , August 01, 2011

"No sane person
written by DutchPrisoner , July 30, 2011

I reject your very premise that Obama -- or any president -- can find an orderly way out of the economic disaster that preceded his term. Only once you acknowledge that the hand he was dealt was worse than any president has had since Roosevelt in 1932 can we discuss his "competency." Lots of evidence says that his policies has prevented catastrophe even though they haven't created the growth you want. But your wishes are based on impatience and a skewed perception of reality. The one thing I know for sure is that the policies of today's Republican's would only bring us closer to a banana republic, which would be OK for a small minority of people and terrible for the rest of us."

I'm guessing you were imprisoned (by the Dutch?) somewhere in 1980 or you were born after 1988. By any metric, the economic and foreign policy situation of the United States in November, 1980 was far worse than any other save the Great Depression in the country's history. Jimmy Carter's name is synonymous with the "Misery Index" for a reason, yet you "know for sure that the polcies of today's Republican's (sic) would only bring us closer to a banana republic". It is demonstrable that Supply Side economics was more than just "OK" for a LARGE MAJORITY of people for more than 20 years. Unfortunately, our dramatic, dynamic growth only papered over and delayed the day of reckoning that the Keynesian social program Ponzi Schemes would finally collapse. Well, the first leg fell, the housing market, which is directly attributable to Federal Government moral hazard intervention. Where Republicans and Democrats share equal guilt is in the corporate/financial industry bailout in 2008. Whereas Reagan spent the first year and a half of his first term (forcing the country "to eat its peas" in the words of Obama) driving out moral hazards by raising interest rates, allowing business to fail and reinstilling a more proper risk and reward relationship within the marketplace, Establishment Politicians in 2008 doubled down on their insane appetite for propping up the moral hazard status quo. Enter Obama, tripling down on the insanity, who took a big trip down Liberal Memory Lane, going full-blown Zombie Keynesian, re-animating and implementing Demand Side policies, a thoroughly discredited school of thought that only an Ivy Tower Marxist (I'm talking about you, Paul Krugman!) could still regard as a concept with any fecundity. Like night follows day, Obama's New, New Deal is proceeding to recreate what FDR accomplished with the original New Deal (1936-40)- raise unemployment, stagnate the economy, explode the deficit and prepare the nation for the next nasty plunge into major Recession/Depression.

I've noticed alot lately that Bananas seem to have been declared the national fruit of the Republic.






Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy