

http://funnypictures.s3.amazonaws.com/e3052b73-b696-47e2-89b2-89c952fba948.jpg
Comments
-
@hrkis, Bush utilized a disproven ideology in an attempt to fix the economy, and he started the Iraq War under the false claim that Hussein had W.M.D.'s. While this isn't what started the recession, it definitely made it a lot worse. The economy has begun rolling once again though, all under the guidance of Obama. Obama certainly isn't a perfect president, but he is WAY better than Bush.
-
@Lonestar15, Where on Earth did you get that information from? The GDP grew by over 4% in 2012 Q1 (which is the most it's grown in the past six years, by the way), and has continued to grow in Q2, Q3, and Q4. In fact, the only time the economy shrank during all of Obama's presidency was 2009 Q1, which was immediately after a certain other president left office.
-
@Fear The Norquist, excuse me. The economy shrank by about .1% annually in Q4. I'm tired because I've had tests and military training all week so the numbers got mixed up in my head. However the 2012 growth for the US was 2.2% and worldwide was 3.4%. Also the growth is marred by the fact that the federal reserve is spending 84.6 billion USD every month in its bond buying program. Growth by government spending is not growth. Also quarterly growth rates are meaningless. Real estate boomed every quarter until 2008 and we all see how that turned out. But no the economy did shrink slightly in Q4 but you are right in that the economy as a whole showed slight growth in 2012. And by the way Obama voted FOR most of the economic policies enacted by Bush and voted FOR the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
@Lonestar15, Yeah my bad I thought that said positive 0.1 instead of negative. But it still doesn't change the fact that the economy tanked under Bush and began to rebound under Obama. And did Obama vote for Bush's inane "Starve the Beast" policies? That was basically adding gasoline to an already huge fire. Look, I'm not an Obama advocate. I don't even like Obama. But I think Bush was legit retarded.
-
@Fear The Norquist, most of the policies that caused the meltdown were enacted long before Bush. Since the federal reserve act in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson the dollar has lost between 96% to 97% of its value. Then reagonimics doubled the national debt. Then we have the housing bubble created by low interest and mortgage rates artificially created by government banks. None of these were caused by Bush. By the way I'm libertarian so I say a curse on both their houses.
-
@0MDerp, look carefully at the comments on here again and think carefully about whether you REALLY want to claim you people want a reasonable, intelligent discussion. Because I'd like nothing better than an intelligent debate, if only it were possible. But I don't remember the last time one of you dopes has made a thoughtful, accurate point. Please look at all these comments and realize I can't be blamed for giving up on you people.
-
@Xxmikegigsxx, sorry to burst your bubble, but stocks have been on the rise the past four years. Last I checked the Dow jones is up to 14,000, which while not an all time high is way higher than it was four years ago. Also, if either one had to do with the awful state of the stock market four years ago, it was Bush. Electing a new president doesn't change the economy, it's the bills that congress writes an the president signs into law that can do that, and when Obama was first elected, Bush continued to be president until January 2009. So you are simply factually incorrect, it's not a matter of which is a better president, youre just wrong.
-
@Arc11295, stocks are on the rise, jobs are being created, and the housing market is going up. Though there is fear of it bubbling again. Under the oboma administration, we have been making progress. Though he should be carefull signing any gun banning laws. The bill of rights states that americans have the right to 'bear arms', so any law forbidding that would be unconditional.
-
@Rise, heard of the debt limit? Congress makes a decision every year to raise the limit on how much we spend. Also Obama may have the funds but is directed what to do with it and must do what congress says. He has no voice in the matter but can only suggest bills encourage the people and veto or pass bills he doesn't control spending. But he is responsible for introducing bills that have near completely turned us from a dem. republic to a socialist country. Read up on your govt.'s system before you try to make up stuff seriously your senators are far more important than the pres you should be sending emails and letters to them not Obama
-
@the new historian, you meant unconstitutional and what people that say that it would be unconstitutional do you not realise that in the constitution alcohol is illegal? The amendment was repealed and the same thing could be done with the second. That being said I own guns and dont want them banned I just get aggravated when people that it would be completely unconstitutional
-
@Jg20, it would be unconstitutional if he simply passed a law banning guns. If he were to repeal the second amendment and then go from there, that's "legal" and wouldn't violate the constitution. Prohibition was repealed, but it wasn't one of the bill of rights. Repealing the second amendment would be no bueno and would set citizens up for a government takeover
-
@All the people above me, I actually made a nonpartisan statement here. You'll notice I said nothing about whether it was Bush or Obama's fault, just that it couldn't possibly be Obama's since he wasn't president yet when the market tanked. I know it's hard for all you to grasp the concept of an American who's capable of being objective every once in a while, not unreasonably so. I mean I didn't think Bush was a good president, we didn't NEED to go into Iraq when he did or anything like that, but that wasn't my point at all. My point was that as far as government is concerned only legislation or an executive order or perhaps a major screw up by the treasury department could make the economy tank like it did, not something as relatively simple as a president being elected, ESPECIALLY since in this case if I recall correctly the market started to tank in EARLY 2008, a good few months before the election, which in turn was a couple of months before Obama became the president.
-
@Brothers shadow, um, you obviously didn't listen during Econ 101. Gov't spending does not grow the economy, it inflates it. The only spending that increases growth is on the consumer side. Gov't spending either is from a leak (tax) or from increasing the amount of circulated currency. Plus, again Econ 101 will tell you that gov't jobs are by definition unproductive to the overall economy, and therefore should never be counted as growth, unless it is a controled economy, which we're getting dangerously close to.
-
@Xxmikegigsxx, so I'm just going to take your word for that because you seem so adamant. But I ask you: so what? Why the hell are you so caught up on that when it was just two freaking months into his presidency? The stock market was still down from the recession that started in 2008! More relevantly the market is UP NOW and you know when it got there? Under president Obama. But I didn't even want this to be about that, all I really was trying to say is that there is no factual support that the election of president Obama caused the market to tank. The market may have had issues after his first inauguration, but that's quite feasibly part of the recession which was ongoing at the time, as I just said. And now that he's been inaugurated again, the market has yet to crash as you initially said it has. I don't want to be antagonistic, but it seems that you foolishly refuse to see the facts that could disprove you because you hate Obama just because he's liberal and you're conservative.
-
@Arc11295, the economy tanked for a few reasons none of which are solely Bush's fault. Number one: the federal reserve. Under the federal reserve our money is backed by the good word of our government unlike the gold standard where we had to have a certain amount of gold to back the dollars we print. The fed pumped billions of dollars of "monopoly money" into the stock market which they continue to do today. I have to make this short because of character limit so I'll continue. Secondly we have interest and mortgage rates. In order to keep those rates low and the housing market high, the federal government pumped fake money into real estate so more people would buy. They also offered loans to people who shouldn't have gotten one. This led to massive foreclosure across the US. I'd like to discuss more but I have a character limit.
-
@Lonestar15, just to explain the stock market more. By pumping money into the stock market the federal reserve is buying corporate stock. This leads to a rise in stock value because of decreased supply. What will happen is that the money that was created out of thin air to buy the stock will drive the purchasing power of the dollar down. When this happens the value of the stocks will crash cause a market meltdown of Great Depression magnitude. The stock market rise has nothing to do with growth. In fact the US economy shrank by 2% last year which is HUGE when you consider GDP. Also the gov. Agencies have zero oversight. The fed can literally do what it wants without congressional approval. They are also appointed by a select committee in congress meaning there is little representation of public opinion in the federal reserve. This is taxation without representation in the committees. These committees essentially allow congress to do as they please without truly representing Americans.
-
@Rise, "the task of destruction is infinitely easier than that of creation" Bush spent 8 years obliterating our economy as hard as possible. It will be a longer and more difficult job to repair it, 8 good years will only be the beginning of a slow and challenging recovery. As Americans aiding this cause, it is our duty to continue electing good presidents that will proceed to improve the country, instead of the next Bush.
-
@Vox Testuidi, you see, what confuses me is that you praise arc, them completely disregard everything he said and continue to talk about how presidents are to blame for economic collapses. Do you just have a little switch in your brain that just flips on whenever you see a democrat, but not care at all what they have to say?
-
I would like to come out and apologize, didn't know this would be such a huge sh*t storm debate... However, whoever mentioned Obama really is the one who got this going. This picture is about BUSH. And how he was a TERRIBLE president. Nowhere does it say anything about Obama. This picture is hilarious, stop being such hard a*ses for once and lighten up.
Eew. Waiter, there's a politics in my FunnyPics.