Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more! RightNation.US Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more!
Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more!
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Did Obama save us from a 2nd Great Depression? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

-----
I have noticed of late the meme that Obama saved us from a second great depression being used to defend his failing economic polices. I have a friend on facebook who is posting items like Berrie Sanders saying it was two wars and the Bush tax cuts that caused government spending to go out of control. I answered him with a link to the heritage foundation showing how little the two wars and the tax cuts effected the budget. It was pointed out to me that the heritage foundation did not take include that we were heading into a great depression and that things were far worse than known. He recently posted a picture of Obama with a box of donuts captions killed Bin Laden, got rid of Gaddafi, saved us from the 2nd great depression and brought donuts. The first two are easy to disprove, but again how to disprove the second great depression.

It sort of sounds like the televangelist who proclaims that he prayed a hurricane to move off shore thus saving everyone. How do you prove to the televangelist and his followers that the hurricane would have tracked that way anyway.

It not be worth it. These people do not care, "Obama is awesome."

How do you counter the argument that it would have been worse? Where is the proof that we were saved from another great depression?
0
  Like

7 Comments On This Entry

I think we are in one right now. The establishment news media are wielding their greatest power - the power to ignore - to keep the great unwashed masses ignorant of it. Couple this with their sychophantic fawning over "The One" and they are succeeding in "fooling some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time." Their hope is that this approach will win a second term for the object of their obsession . . .
0
I agree. you could smack them with tons of facts, and they would literally kiss 0bama's worthless feet.

Can you post a link to the Heritage Foundation you mentioned?
0
It probably would have been worse... but shorter. THAT'S the point most pundits avoid. Recessions and "market corrections" occur from time to time; this is part of the natural cycle. But compare the average time-to-recovery under liberals versus the same thing under conservatives, and it's obvious. I don't have the charts at my fingertips, but I know they've been posted on RN by others.

Same thing with Obama as with Great Depression #1 under Roosevelt. History says that the aftereffects of the '29 crash should have lasted 18 to 24 months. For the sake of discussion, let's double it and say 48 months. Roosevelt stretched it out to 140 months.
0
There is just as much proof than Obama prevented us from a full recovery as there is that he saved us from a 2nd Great Depression. That is my standard retort for anyone who comes at me with the old "Obama saved us from a depression" nonsense. This is what liberals do: they state as fact things that are not disprovable. It is up to us to point out that what they say isn't provable either.
0
Obama has us IN a second great depression. Not only have we changed the way we calculate the unemployment rate - it sits at about 17% under the way it was calculated back then, not the 8-9% you hear reported now. We also got rid of the soup lines by with welfare checks and 99 weeks of unemployment payments.

Economically, he's doing the same type of things as FDR and getting similar results.
0

swede1962, on 27 January 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

I agree. you could smack them with tons of facts, and they would literally kiss 0bama's worthless feet.Can you post a link to the Heritage Foundation you mentioned?


Here is the link.

http://www.heritage....-budget-deficit
0

Joe the Pagan, on 30 January 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

swede1962, on 27 January 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

I agree. you could smack them with tons of facts, and they would literally kiss 0bama's worthless feet.Can you post a link to the Heritage Foundation you mentioned?
Here is the link.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/the-three-biggest-myths-about-tax-cuts-and-the-budget-deficit


It's a very good read and I agree with most of it, especially the part below that starts about 2/3 down the article. The only (minor) quibble I would have with it all is that they keep talking about the "2001 surplus" and "projected" surpluses after that. I don't believe the surplus was actually 'real' to begin with. And after the '99-'00 dotcom crash, I don't believe anyone at the time thought the future "projected" surplus were anything more than a fantasy.

Quote

Virtually all deficit reduction in the 1990s originated from just three sources:

-Higher revenues, mostly from a temporary stock and economic bubble.

- Lower defense spending following the end of the Cold War, and

- Net interest savings resulting from less borrowing, a result of the other two factors.

The rest of the federal budget merely remained level as a share of the GDP throughout the decade, which itself may be considered an accomplishment for lawmakers.

Returning to those budget levels would not be easy. The stock market bubble is unlikely to return, nor would that be desirable. The 9/11 attacks ended the era of massive defense spending cuts, higher debt has brought higher net interest costs, and 10,000 baby boomers per day are retiring into Social Security and Medicare. Overall, the difference between 2001 and 2020 can be explained as follows:

- The 2001 tax revenues were bubble-inflated (down 1.6 percent of GDP),

- 2001 defense spending was as at prewar levels (up 0.8 percent of GDP),

- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs are growing (up 3.3 percent of GDP),

- Presidents Bush and Obama hiked domestic discretionary spending (up 0.5 percent of GDP),

- Other entitlement spending is rising (up 0.8 percent of GDP), and

- Rising debt means rising net interest costs (up 2.6 percent of GDP).1.

As a result, a budget surplus of 1.3 percent of GDP in 2001 is set to become a deficit of 8.3 percent by 2020. (See Table 1.)
0
Page 1 of 1

0 user(s) viewing

0 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)

Digg