I agree, but I found the vid humorous and I liked the title

In reply to this comment by Jaace:
I guess we forgot about Bush already, eh neo-cons?

You elected Bush TWICE. I don't want to hear ANY complaints** until after Obama has been in office for a full 8 years and nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse.

So shaddup.


** Not that we shouldn't criticize him...but this stuff isn't gonna happen overnight. Technically the job loss started under Bush and hasn't been repaired yet. Blame the right person plz.

>> ^Jaace:
I guess we forgot about Bush already, eh neo-cons?
You elected Bush TWICE. I don't want to hear ANY complaints until after Obama has been in office for a full 8 years and nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse.
So shaddup.
Not that we shouldn't criticize him...but this stuff isn't gonna happen overnight. Technically the job loss started under Bush and hasn't been repaired yet. Blame the right person plz.


I agree, but I find the vid humorous ...and loved the title.

I guess we forgot about Bush already, eh neo-cons?

You elected Bush TWICE. I don't want to hear ANY complaints** until after Obama has been in office for a full 8 years and nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse.

So shaddup.


** Not that we shouldn't criticize him...but this stuff isn't gonna happen overnight. Technically the job loss started under Bush and hasn't been repaired yet. Blame the right person plz.

Actually I think Obama's plan has worked. The stock market is going up again. Job losses are slowing. Looks like he made the right call.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I do take issue with the 500,000 jobs lost this month, an "improvement" over last month's job loss of 600,000.
8.9% unemployment rate?


And all of that is the result of your butthole buddy, George W. Bush, you filthy lying piece of shit.

You talk like the unemployment rate magically jumped to 8.9% in the last 100 days, shitstain.

You can't open your mouth without lying.

Get the fuck out of my country.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't give a damn about how Barack eats his burger.
I do take issue with the 500,000 jobs lost this month, an "improvement" over last month's job loss of 600,000.
8.9% unemployment rate? Hasn't been that high in 30 years.
None of this is an accident. An angry marxist radical, Dear Leader has only contempt for free markets and freedom.
Somebody tell Stink Uyger of Young Turds: this Obama presidency is a total fking disaster for the "common man" and it's just begun.


The only problem with your rhetoric is, the unemployment rate and job losses are a direct result of our former president, not our current one. When are you guys going to get this straight? I suppose it's Obama's fault that no WMD's were found in Iraq too? You're right none of it is an accident. And you have your beloved GW Bush to blame. So suck on that.

If by "common man" you mean anyone that makes over 250k a year, then yes it's a disaster. Boo hoo, so sad.

Also, it's pretty sad when the only thing they can find to bitch about is the condiments Obama has on his burger. However, I'd expect nothing less than this petty bullshit from Faux Newz. As always, keep it classy guys.

I don't give a damn about how Barack eats his burger.

I do take issue with the 500,000 jobs lost this month, an "improvement" over last month's job loss of 600,000.

8.9% unemployment rate? Hasn't been that high in 30 years.

None of this is an accident. An angry marxist radical, Dear Leader has only contempt for free markets and freedom.

Somebody tell Stink Uyger of Young Turds: this Obama presidency is a total fking disaster for the "common man" and it's just begun.

The stimulus is not really written to address the topics you mentioned since writing a bill like that would make the US into the USSR, the bill is two fold the way I see it, it aims to help those in dire need now (unemployment insurance and food stamps) and it is written to spur on investment spending in the long term through fiscal expenditure (infrastructure spending). The aim is to increased aggregate demand in the whole economy in the short term and reduce the job losses.

Now people instantly say why don't we just give tax cuts and this will give the same effect? It has been done already and it didn't work, you had a large tax cut in 2008 that did nothing to alleviate the economic crisis we face today. People simply saved or paid off debt which does not generate economic activity. e.g. from Krugman in Jan.2008

Instead, what seems to be happening is that the Bush administration refuses to sign on to anything that it can’t call a “tax cut.” Behind that refusal, in turn, lies the administration’s commitment to slashing tax rates on the affluent while blocking aid for families in trouble — a commitment that requires maintaining the pretense that government spending is always bad. - Stimulus gone bad

The same thing will happen again if tax cuts are given, at the same time the tax cuts would be essentially government income that is written off and only adds to the budget deficit.

This is where monetary policy of controlling the economy through the money supply basically could not avert the problems we face today, the Fed is keeping interest rates low but you do not see increased economic activity due to lack of consumer/business confidence in the economy as a whole. We face a liquidity trap, the banks and financial institutions are simply unwilling to make any kinds of loans to spur economic activity.

You can read more about the exact steps summed up nicely at NYT since am not going to rewrite everything http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html

Will this work and make the US spurt flowers tomorrow? No. The economy will keep spiraling down, since effects like this take years to transmit through the entire economy. Remember that the Housing bubble, sub prime mortgages and other issues were highlighted nearly 2 years ago before the actual effects started being seen. But this bill will help Americans in need now.

Blankfist doesn't really know what he is talking about, and is buying into the conservative blame game, it was deregulation in the derivatives market that helped created this crisis, all Greenspan needed to do at one point to prevent alot of this is say the words "Housing bubble" - http://www.videosift.com/video/Klein-Blames-Greenspan-Deregulation-for-Economic-Crisis

We will see how it pans out. However am with Krugman and Stiglitz, I don't think it goes far enough at all, the program needs to be much larger. In Krugman's words:

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

Just wait a few months for this stimulus to be ineffective, the Republicans come out and politicize it, criticize it saying it didn't work because it was stupid and we needed more tax cuts. But is a difficult situation, you got large government debt on one hand, and you need a large stimulus on the other. How do you reconcile those.

Just to clarify my earlier statements since it appears as though some people think I was stating that job losses were a legitimate reason to maintain the prohibition on weed.

If you believe that legalizing marijuana will save tax payer money, it's not hard to see how there will be people affected by the reallocation of those funds and that there is a high likelihood that many of those people will be looking for a new job. This may not be the situation everywhere, but in localities that have a large portion of their police staff devoted to policing marijuana crimes(like a lot of places in Florida), it's a strong possibility that there well be jobs lost.

I do not feel this is a valid reason to continue prohibiting marijuana, merely a drawback to legalization. It's important to realize that there will likely be consequences to ending prohibition on weed.

If you explain the Great Depression without even mentioning massive job loss at least once, then you have no credibility. I will never understand the Austrian school of economics. Go through history achieving nothing, just analyzing things after they've happened and saying that you were right.

More of the same ahead as the deconstruction of the economy picks up pace? The "Angry White Male" syndrome? I think it will probably become just "Angry Person" syndrome, as more folks face foreclosure, job loss, high gas prices, closed banks. Add a little Anger Power-ups provided by talk radio, Ann Coulter, etc., and burn, baby, burn. Or something like that.

JOB LOSS

FAILING SCHOOLS

PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE HEALTHCARE