Guess the median wage.

george-bush-miss-me-yet.jpg
 
@Dammy,
Still same answer. No. The world would have been better off if he had died of a coke induced heart attack (or didn't get out of going to Vietnam just because his dad could pull strings).
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
@Dammy,
Still same answer. No. The world would have been better off if he had died of a coke induced heart attack (or didn't get out of going to Vietnam just because his dad could pull strings).
Click to expand...

It is hard to imagine that Obama could be worse for the US on economic issues than Bush's second term, but here we are.
 
redrumloa said:
Look how those lines free fall after Obama takes office despite and/or due to Porkulus.
Click to expand...
Over 40 years in Libya Qaddafi oversaw the building of infrastructure including the giant "man made river" project which tapped a huge aquifer and distributed drinking water to cities all over Libya and generally improved the quality of life, health care and education. Of course, the 20 somethings have no idea what life was like 40 or 60 years ago so they only know how they were behind what the Americans in movies have.

However, in the last half year NATO have bombed cities to crap and the NTC rebels have run in behind the bombs to shoot the crap out of places and lynch anyone who didn't like the new flag. The country is in large parts destroyed, thousands killed and buildings and infrastructure shattered. This is of course Qaddafi's fault because he was the ruler up until just a few days ago.

Of course, now Qaddafi is dead and his reign is over. Therefore, by Red logic, we should see the dead come back to life, the buildings become whole once more and everything return magically to normal or better because the good guys are in charge.

You surely know better than to think that's how reality works. Libya will be a bombed out hole for years and the damage from NATOs bombing campaign will take billions of dollars to fix and it can't happen over night (and since the NATO powers will now be tapped into the oil profits and have taken over the banking system it may never get fixed). Things will get worse there before they can get better. Turn around takes time especially when what underpins the system is destroyed.

You love to blame Obama and porkulus, but even you must admit that that is simple minded jingoism. The time scale you talk about as being Obama and porkulus are, of course, more accurately the time of the collapse of the financial system - an event that came about because of pre-Obama conditions and that cannot be quick fixed by anything because it is only the last symptom of a rotted out system.

You can argue about what porkulus did or didn't accomplish but it's more an argument about whether the fire department should have had more trucks come to the blaze or whether they should have stood back and watched it burn.

Who was in the house at the time would have made almost no difference to the first few years (except how many people starved). Don't forget that while the median wage has gone down the top wage and corporate profits have shot through the roof, something which, the economic fashion since Reagan tells us is causing everyone to get more wealthy and employed. Of course, trickle down is bullshit and always has been but that is actually the real problem and the cause.

Just as with you praise of Rick Scott in another thread you are mis-attributing things that would more or less have happened the same despite the personality in the office. There is a system behind the man that constrains what they can actually do. For example, Obama failed to secure Elizabeth Warren as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau simply because she would have had the wit and energy to put a stop to bad practices that a lot of people with influence profit from (and therefore they couldn't allow the interference with their "business model").
 
redrumloa said:
It is hard to imagine that Obama could be worse for the US on economic issues than Bush's second term, but here we are.
Click to expand...
This just shows you don't understand systems. mind you, I don't think Obama does either. I said years back I didn't know why anyone was running against Bush because we all knew that what they would inherit was so broken it was due to fall apart. You can blame Obama for failing to fix things but not for not trying. Bush didn't try even though it was obvious to many of us that things were already broken. The FBI even warned the Bush administration that there was a serious problem building in mortgage backed securities at a time when Bush could have started fixing things so the collapse would not have been so bad, or perhaps could have been avoided.

On the other hand, the Bush family had made lots of money collapsing the savings and loans so perhaps the FBI were talking to the wrong guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top