pres-elect:

wait till tayo wakes up 2mrw to give his own version

. TAYO D is a staunch republican though. Nothing more,nothing less.

chic2pimp:

. TAYO D is a staunch republican though. Nothing more,nothing less.

The Michael Steele of Nairaland.

pres-elect:

david some of them are so bitter, they dont care about obama reducing their taxes. they just want him dead. . . they dont care. one was very frank and said he'll vote for the white man. the guy in mississipi said he's not ready for a nigga to rule. the other guy said the south is not ready.

tea party

I wonder how long it will take Tayo to wake up and smell the fire. Did you note the irony in those who claimed they would leave the country shld Obama win? They were thinking of moving to more socialist countries like Canada, Spain and Costa Rica?

And to think their major grouse with Obama was socialism!

The kind of drivel you 2 are spouting, it's embarrassing.  Cries of racism is the refuge of the clueless.

Obama's spending policies are unsustainable without either massive across the board tax hikes, as even the NY Times' editorial acknowledges recently, or an economic meltdown. One can always point to loopy critics to de-legitimise genuine concerns about the the direction of economic policy but such critics exist on both sides, remember the percentage of Democrats who thought Bush had something to do with 9-11? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance.

If your spending plans mean that you are going to incur debts at almost 3 times the rate Bush incurred them, do you expect some people not to go ballistics about their future tax bill?

4 Play:

The kind of drivel you 2 are spouting, it's embarrassing.  Cries of racism is the refuge of the clueless.

Obama's spending policies are unsustainable without either massive across the board tax hikes, as even the NY Times' editorial acknowledges recently, or an economic meltdown. One can always point to loopy critics to de-legitimise genuine concerns about the the direction of economic policy but such critics exist on both sides, remember the percentage of Democrats who thought Bush had something to do with 9-11? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance.

If your spending plans mean that you are going to incur debts at almost 3 times the rate Bush incurred them, do you expect some people not to go ballistics about their future tax bill? 

you dont seem to get the point. The issue isnt about serious ideological differences with Obama, its the fact that these people opposing Obama have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you are talking about. They are not ballistic about their future tax bill, if they were they would not have supported 2 unsustainable wars on terror.

Its funny how there are so many critics of Obama's economic policy who dont proffer a single alternative solution to the problems he is facing.

People on each side of the political divide are by definition hypocrites. During the Bush era, Obama and other Democrats never failed to express concerns about ballooning deficits, until they got into power and made projections that will make the Bush deficits look like child's play. That still doesn't mean that there is something nefarious at work when they make such criticisms.

Will the protesters been as passionate about the deficits if Obama was a Republican? No. Is it evidence that they are a bunch of racists? Absolutely not. People's minds are more focused by flaws they perceive in the policies of parties they don't support, however, to jump to a conclusion that it is all down to racism is the height of absurdity.

Ultimately, the fiscal outlook of the US will drive even the least partisan to anger. The alternative is to stop the spending binge by the Fed Govt. The monetary stimulus by the Fed Reserve is enough to revive and put the economy on a sustainable growth path in the long term.

we dont know him . . who is he? yet 200,000 people in far away germany came to listen to him

he is a mus-lim, yet they attack his former pastor

he is a socialist . . . yet they would rather live in canada/spain/ etc more established unapologetic socialist welfare states than be in america under him

high taxes . . . yet he lowered their taxes

death panels . . . . . and nobody has read the bills, and the woman who started the death panel story could not show jon stewart where it was written in the bill she brought to his show, . . loosing her job within a week of that interview.

he was born in kenya, we dont believe that hawaii certificate, yet they believe some fake document with ''kenyan'' origin

he is racist . . yet he surrounds himself with white people in his cabinet and in the white house.

dont talk to our children who are going to school, a president should not talk to school children. yet bush did it in I99I, and not a single word of complaint

big govt we dont like it, yet it was Bush created a new dept of homeland security whose necessity is debatable

i can go on and on, say it loud, the guy is black . . . and this guy isnt even completely black sef. here in the UK he'll be identified as mixed race. different from black. and in africa, eg nigeria we'll call him oyibo.

abeg next topic pls

I'm not sure what 4Play is commenting on. 

If these people are merely angry at the fiscal outlook for America then they must have been sound asleep all through Bush's reign.

as for the black haters, this should not be a surprise anyway. there were black soldiers fighting for the confederates during the civil war  fighting to keep slavery on.
there will always be fools in any population. sad but true. even the documentary ''right america feeling wronged'' shows some two blacks in mississipi whose main concern is that mississipi should  not be painted black.

pathetic

davidylan:

I'm not sure what 4Play is commenting on.

If these people are merely angry at the fiscal outlook for America then they must have been sound asleep all through Bush's reign.

they were actually in coma then. _{there is a new coma discovered by the british medical association which can last for 8yrs . . . just joking}

davidylan:

I'm not sure what 4Play is commenting on.  If these people are merely angry at the fiscal outlook for America then they must have been sound asleep all through Bush's reign.

You don't know what you're talking about. The US is to incur at least $9 trillion extra debt under Obama and you're still talking of the + $3 trillion incurred by Bush.

@Pres elect.

You're quite thick. Your incoherent ramblings will make sense if everyone of Obama's critics were uniform.

4play

you are pathetic. we were discussing a documentary and you jumped to talk about fiscal issues. where was that in what i was discussing with david? brilliant slowpoke

4 Play:

You don't know what you're talking about. The US is to incur at least $9 trillion extra debt under Obama and you're still talking of the + $3 trillion incurred by Bush.

i doubt you know what you're talking about either. Bush didnt incurr $3tr, what he did was hide the cost of the wars from the books so everything looked manageable. Now that Obama has placed everything in the open everyone is crying?

He hastnt presented a yrly budget yet and everyone is already crying about deficit? WHAT SHLD HE HAVE DONE? Raised taxes or folded his hands and watched the economy implode to avoid a deficit? Its not like Bush left him a surplus and he's recklessly spending it all. He inherited a deficit and WORSE a tanking economy and 2 horribly expensive wars . . . i guess you all expect him to fight the war and generate a surplus no?

Its to avoid the deficit that he is willing to let Bush tax cuts expire in 2011.

I asked again . . . if these folks are only angry about deficits where were they for the last 8 yrs?

pres-elect:

4play

you are pathetic. we were discussing a documentary and you jumped to talk about fiscal issues. where was that in what i was discussing with david? brilliant slowpoke

i wonder.

Who watches a documentary by Nancy Pelosi's daughter? Might as well watch a documentary made by Sean Hannity for 'insight' into leftist thinking. Blithering idiot.

The tax protest is about the economy, no doubt heightened by partisanship, but well grounded in genuine fears. Only a simpleton believes that criticisms of Obama must necessarily be race motivated.

4 Play:

Who watches a documentary by Nancy Pelosi's daughter? Might as well watch a documentary made by Sean Hannity for 'insight' into leftist thinking. Blithering idiot.

The tax protest is about the economy, no doubt heightened by partisanship, but well grounded in genuine fears. Only a simpleton believes that criticisms of Obama must necessarily be race motivated.

4Play YOU"RE PATENTLY LYING HERE.

The tax protest was about the economy? What economy? They were protesting taxes in March when most of them got reduced taxes?

When Bush first ordered the bailouts where were they?

davidylan:

i doubt you know what you're talking about either. Bush didnt incurr $3tr, what he did was hide the cost of the wars from the books so everything looked manageable. Now that Obama has placed everything in the open everyone is crying?

This is a bloody joke. Let be more accurate. Bush accumulated + $4 trillion but while you can 'hide' the cost from the budget, you can't hide it from the national debt. That's just hogwash.

He hastnt presented a yrly budget yet and everyone is already crying about deficit? WHAT SHLD HE HAVE DONE? Raised taxes or folded his hands and watched the economy implode to avoid a deficit? Its not like Bush left him a surplus and he's recklessly spending it all. He inherited a deficit and WORSE a tanking economy and 2 horribly expensive wars . . . i guess you all expect him to fight the war and generate a surplus no?

Obama has not announced his spending plans yet? Where you sleeping when the administration projected $9trillion in extra debt?

Tell you what he should do. Don't spend like a drunken sailor.

4 Play:

This is a bloody joke. Let be more accurate. Bush accumulated + $4 trillion but while you can 'hide' the cost from the budget, you can't hide it from the national debt. That's just hogwash.

Obama has not announced his spending plans yet? Where you sleeping when the administration projected $9trillion in extra debt?

Tell you what he should do. Don't spend like a drunken sailor.

in short he shld do nothing?

davidylan:

4Play YOU"RE PATENTLY LYING HERE.

The tax protest was about the economy? What economy? They were protesting taxes in March when most of them got reduced taxes?

For God's sake, if you are going to incur deficits that eventually top 100% GDP, taxes will have to go up irrespective of current tax policies. This is such a simple concept that shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.

There is no point giving me a tax cut now when I have to pay for it in the future. How do you pay for national debt at 100% GDP,do you think money will fall from the skies?

davidylan:

in short he shld do nothing?

Precisely.

4 Play:

For God's sake, if you are going to incur deficits that eventually top 100% GDP, taxes will have to go up irrespective of current tax policies. This is such a simple concept that shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.

There is no point giving me a tax cut now when I have to pay for it in the future. How do you pay for national debt at 100% GDP,do you think money will fall from the skies?

they've been trying to moot the tax hike possibility lately and i believe they will need to do this if they must avoid a ballooning deficit. But doing nothing IMO is much worse than spending. There was no knowing when the recession would bottom out.

Raising taxes was the EXACT REASON WE HAD THE TEA PARTIES! You cant be taken seriously if you're crying about a deficit and fighting a tax increase!

davidylan:

they've been trying to moot the tax hike possibility lately and i believe they will need to do this if they must avoid a ballooning deficit. But doing nothing IMO is much worse than spending. There was no knowing when the recession would bottom out.

The only thing I agree with the President doing is bailing out the financial industry because the industry is the cornerstone of the economy. Beyond that, the President should do nothing more.

The economy has a business cycle. It's not a command economy. All Americans must do is batten down the hatches until the business cycle turns. The Fed is already pumping trillions into the economy through QE. Any other thing Obama does makes things worse in the long term.

@4play
if the documentary was from mrs pelosi what about it? was it a lie? was it fundamentally false?or you just dismiss it b/c it was from a person you hate? like the white racists dismis people based on their color and sheer hatred? answer me, you educated slowpoke.

sometimes, it is better to keep your mouth shut, and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

pathetic

4 Play:

The only thing I agree with the President doing is bailing out the financial industry because the industry is the cornerstone of the economy. Beyond that, the President should do nothing more.

The economy has a business cycle. It's not a command economy. All Americans must do is batten down the hatches until the business cycle turns. The Fed is already pumping trillions into the economy through QE. Any other thing Obama does makes things worse in the long term.

Here's the problem though . . . that was PRECISELY what the teabaggers were protesting AGAINST! Maybe you shld have watched Fox News in Feb-March. We were continously inundated with pundits predicting the collapse of the economy for bailing out the auto and financial industries. Is this not the reason they accuse Obama of being a socialist who wants to control the banks and now their healthcare?
Maybe Obama shld have left them to collapse so the same hypocrites can turn around and accuse him of doing nothing.

Its much easier to criticise from our armchairs than to proffer solutions. You say Obama shld have sat still until the business cycle turned . . . that would have been when? 2010 when the democrats would have lost their majority hold in congress for doing exactly what you advocate?

I doubt you understand the folks in Pelosi's video . . . i repeat - they are not attacking Obama based on ideology.

davidylan:

Here's the problem though . . . that was PRECISELY what the teabaggers were protesting AGAINST!

That's a different thing to reaching for the lazy explanation of attributing opposition to Obama as simply the product of racial prejudice. The fiscal outlook for the US is dire, the views of what causes this dire outlook may differ but it is perfectly understandable why people will protest about inevitable tax rises due to the massive deficits. In essence, the protesters are right for the wrong reasons.

Of course, if Obama does nothing, Glen Beck and Hannity will be the first to condemn him as a traitor but Obama's/Democrat's political expediency is no reason to load up the US with more debt.

davidylan:

Its much easier to criticise from our armchairs than to proffer solutions. You say Obama shld have sat still until the business cycle turned . . . that would have been when? 2010 when the democrats would have lost their majority hold in congress for doing exactly what you advocate?

Now! The economy is turning around now and it's not because of anything Obama has done. Do you think it's ''Cash for Clunkers'' or the fiscal stimulus bill that is causing the recent turn around?

Anything Obama is doing adds nothing but debt. I know politicians must be seen to be 'doing something' but it's outrageous for politicians to be endangering their country's economic well being so that they can be re-elected.

4 Play:

Now! The economy is turning around now and it's not because of anything Obama has done. Do you think it's ''Cash for Clunkers'' or the fiscal stimulus bill that is causing the recent turn around?

Anything Obama is doing adds nothing but debt. I know politicians must be seen to be 'doing something' but it's outrageous for politicians to be endangering their country's economic well being so that they can be re-elected.

This just cost you any credibility you had on this issue. I laugh in greek . . . the economy is now turning OF ITS OWN ACCORD? Even the WSJ (as conservative as it is) did not make such a blunder. They had a piece on it 2 weeks ago, go read it.

davidylan:

This just cost you any credibility you had on this issue. I laugh in greek . . . the economy is now turning OF ITS OWN ACCORD? Even the WSJ (as conservative as it is) did not make such a blunder. They had a piece on it 2 weeks ago, go read it.

Can you explain how the recent turn around came about. I'm always happy to be educated.

Let me give you my own view. QE pumped lots of cash into the system and companies after having destocked inventories drastically have to restock. That's what turns the economy around. I'm sure you believe that Obama waved some magic wand which turned the economy around

4 Play:

Can you explain how the recent turn around came about. I'm always happy to be educated.

Let me give you my own view. QE pumped lots of cash into the system and companies after having destocked inventories drastically have to restock. That's what turns the economy around. I'm sure you believe that Obama waved some magic wand which turned the economy around

this is odd . . . by all forecasts the recession was not expected to end until late 2010 if the Fed did nothing. They had been pumping cash into the economy since Bush, the interest rates where already zero. why didnt it turn around before it go this bad?

The WSJ cant be lying . . . they arent exactly a mouthpiece for Obama. - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

davidylan:

this is odd . . . by all forecasts the recession was not expected to end until late 2010 if the Fed did nothing. They had been pumping cash into the economy since Bush, the interest rates where already zero. why didnt it turn around before it go this bad?

As early as late January/early February, some economists were predicting positive GDP numbers in Q3. That argument was used during the stimulus debate to state that Obama the fiscal stimulus was unnecesary as the economy was bound to turn around.

The Fed is not an extension of the Obama administration and QE only started in March, not during the Bush era.

4 Play:

As early as late January/early February, some economists were predicting positive GDP numbers in Q3. That argument was used during the stimulus debate to state that Obama the fiscal stimulus was unnecesary as the economy was bound to turn around.

The Fed is not an extension of the Obama administration and QE only started in March, not during the Bush era.

That's real funny because that is clearly not true. Even now that the economy is turning we arent likely to have positive GDP until next yr. Infact the -1% GDP growth rate was a huge surprise to economists who didnt expect it to get better so soon.

To say the stimulus has not worked even though less than 15% of it has been spent so far is just trying to be dishonest.

davidylan:

That's real funny because that is clearly not true.

Of course, you are aware of all the predictions ever made by every single economist. Your knowledge is staggering!

Even now that the economy is turning we arent likely to have positive GDP until next yr.

I will save this funny statement for posterity. I hope you know that positive GDP growth means that Q3 only has to grow vis-a-vis Q2.

To say the stimulus has not worked even though less than 15% of it has been spent so far is just trying to be dishonest.

The answer is in your statement. The stimulus is $750bn. The US economy is $14 trillion. You think $112bn(15% and less than 1% of GDP) turned around a $14 trillion economy? A quintessential Obamabot.

It's a bit late in London but I thought I make out time to refute David's implicit suggestion that he is aware of every economists' predictions made this year.

The predictions in January '09 that the recession will end in Q3 sparked heated debates in some of the econo blogs: Here is one article from the NYT:

If the dominoes fall the right way, the economy should bottom out and start growing again in small steps by July, according to the December survey of 50 professional forecasters by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Investors seemed to be in a similarly optimistic mood on Friday, bidding up stocks by about 3 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/business/economy/03econ.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss This is dated 05 January '09. If you want more, I can get you loads more such early predictions.

I'm sure some people find it hard to believe that Obama is not responsible for some of the positive things happening but the truth is more complex than some of the propaganda people are being fed.

4 Play:

The predictions in January '09 that the recession will end in Q3 sparked heated debates in some of the econo blogs: Here is one article from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/business/economy/03econ.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss This is dated 05 January '09. If you want more, I can get you loads more such early predictions.

I'm sure some people find it hard to believe that Obama is not responsible for some of the positive things happening but the truth is more complex than some of the propaganda people are being fed.

This from the article you quoted predicting a quick end to the recession . . .

[size=17pt]For this rosy picture to play out, they are counting on the Obama administration and Congress to come through with a substantial stimulus package, at least $675 billion over two years.[/size]

It was the second paragraph so you had no excuse not to have seen it. Perhaps you can ask those economists who you revere so much as to cite how they thought such a puny amount of cash could turn around the US economy so quickly.

I rest my case with those who choose to be deliberately misled. There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.