You have to blame someone.

  1. This post has been removed.

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: You have to blame someone.

    It is unreasonable to expect that one's actions would not have consequences. Economists were warning of this before the Xmas season started. GOP is partly to blame, but Obama should have done what he did in November not waited til the final hour.

  3. This post has been removed.

  4. This post has been removed.

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from doozy-day. Show doozy-day's posts

    Re: You have to blame someone.

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    ...reduced government spending from the sequester and economic uncertainty stemming from the fiscal-cliff negotiations was likely to blame. Krueger also said Hurricane Sandy likely disrupted significant economic activity.

    Bwaaaahhhhhhhhh, if that is the case, then I want to put all of the blame on Katrina, not Bush, for all of the times you've blamed Bush for the bad economy that Obama inherited.

    Do you really believe what you wrote?

    C'mon, you're not that fvcking stupid.

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: You have to blame someone.

    Bush did it.  That, or it's Halliburton.  You knw, war for oil.


    Economy show good signs = Obama's policies are working.

    Economy shows bad signs = Republicans, Bush/Cheney are the problem.

    When will the left stop being little children and stand up for the results their polices have wrought?

    Enough already grow up, Obama.  and all his subjects.

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: You have to blame someone.

    After reading a number of articles concerning the GDP "surprise" and listening to NPR this morning; I'm left with questions and suspisions.

    Most economists didn't see it coming but quickly after the "bad" news say it's just an anomaly; murmurs about hurricane Sandy, decrease in Defense spending, sell off of inventories due to fiscal cliff concerns.

    But what about our massive consumer spending this quarter that was up again and it didn't bouy the numbers.

    Then some say if Defense spending didn't drop it would have gone from a slight decline to slight increase.

    Another said if you look at the third and forth quarters combined its a more accurate snap shot of the weak recovery.

    There may be more truth to that statement the we know.  My theorey is that the government manipulated some of its reporting to bump the 3rd qtr to make the economy look better, just before the election then it was.  Early reporting to bump numbers means that less reporting would take place in the 4th qtr.  Remember how unemployment miraculously dropped just before the election only to pop back up. 

    Remember how talking points after Benghazi were tweaked to fall in line with the re-election message that GM is alive, Osama is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run.

    Well the the economy is still working itself out of the mud and Al Qaeda is very much still a threat.

  8. This post has been removed.