After four years and an impending election on the horizon, America has this to show for their trust in President Obama to right the nation economically: another round of the "Blame Game."
Ho hum, the Obama economy blame game goes on and on and on. And now this week he's blaming the GOP. But American's want to remind him that it was a Democrat who said "It's the economy stupid," so why can't he fix what he said he could four years ago?
Bill Clinton managed the economy pretty well, and he's within earshot of the president. In fact, Hillary, who lived with Bill in the White House sees Obama every day, so why doesn't he ask her for help?
The least the president up for re-election could do is actually try and fix the problems facing America himself, since he did get elected into office to do that. So why doesn't he? Why hasn't he?
Because he can't; he never could. And he never will. But he isn't going to tell voters that. In fact, he can't even admit there is a problem.
Fox News reported the president said this during his recent economic speech on Friday, "The private sector is doing fine."
Bring on Mitt Romney.
Even Obama knows this guy can manage money, he's certainly did a great job with his own, in fact. And at least no one will have to remind him that "It's the economy, stupid" or have to hear him blame everyone, for everything that can go wrong in the White House or the country.
That blame game stuff Obama plays gets really, really old after four years. And all this talk, talk, talk and statements, statements, statements about the Obama economy isn't accomplishing diddly squat. So why do we need him four more years? The answer is we don't.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 31 ( 1 removed by Hillary Hill )
Barry is not my president, and I believe he is a domestic enemy.
Do you think there will be an honest election?
I do not.
Obama should be dismayed, but I don't think he even cares.
An economic rule of thumb is that the sort of collapse we underwent in 2008 takes five or more years to recover from. Given the worsening state of the global economy with the abysmal conditions in Europe and China's growth slowdown, it looks like it's going to take more than five years.
It's not Bush's fault, although the economic policies his administration followed, including appointing people the the SEC board who were committed to not enforcing regulations didn't help. The housing bubble was everybody's fault, just like the dot com bubble and other delusion fueled booms of the past.
It's silly to blame Obama or Bush for the collapse of 2008 and it's silly to blame Obama for the slow recovery. There's a limited amount the federal government can do to affect the economy when it goes into catastrophic failure mode. In order for the government to have affected the economy in a noticeable way it would have had to spend a lot more, a very large amount more, than it did on the "stimulus." The stimulus had a modest positive effect according to most economists. Almost nobody in the field believes it made things worse.
Government is not the answer, government is the problem.
"There's a limited amount the federal government can do to affect the economy when it goes into catastrophic failure mode. In order for the government to have affected the economy in a noticeable way it would have had to spend a lot more"
Actually if the president would agree to roll back regulation 5 to 10 years, the economy would start to grow. But the strangle hold and the authority that those regulations give him, is what he is after so it will never happen.
Nip, can you memorize 10,000 regulations and live by them without breaking one? Can you live by 10,000 per year? As the amount of regulations increase, the amount of governmental power increases with it and your freedom decreases. Employers are not going to hire when they have no idea what regulations they need to live by tomorrow. There is a lot the government can do that will not cost a dime. The government only needs to get out of the way.
Why would they?
We need a New Deal with programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration. We need a New Deal, but we won't get it under this Congress.
Clearly we have too any Republicans and Democrats who act like Republicans in Congress.
Congress controls the purse strings anyway. This big increase that Obama is supposed to have caused never happened. It is another lie from the racists.
I think you may mean the spending increase %. Nothing else makes mathematical sense.
Congress can't control themselves, much less purse strings. But they held the knife that cut the bottom out of the purse. Obama signed off on everything, and melanin levels had nothing to do with it.
Yea thats all we need - we are not quite communist enough YET.
As to the debt - yes the debt increases started to accelerate after Eisenhower (53 –61), ending with 278B in debt.
But to add 6T to the debt in 3 ½ years is quite an accomplishment (?). Bush lite, with his stupid mistakes, and Dem controlled houses, added 5T in 8 years.
Hard to claim 6T is less than 5T, or that 2T/year is less than 650B/year. Plus as Ted mentions, Obamacare will add another trillion all by itself!
Obama is on track to add about another 3 trillion in 2013 on top of that, to reach a total debt increase in his first term of (drum roll please brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbr) 10 Trillion dollars!!!!!!!!!!! (Bob, tell them about their consolation prizes please! – A GO BANKRUPT play at home version)
YES, bankruptcy IS in our future.