You are right. Had Obama had his way and congress not acted responsibly the US would have gone the way of Venezuela. Hugo Chavez was a hero to the Leftist 2/3 of the Dems, at least until his policies ran their course.

So yes, there was another way for the US to go. Fortunately, Obama blew all of his political capital on the Affordable Care act and never got the opportunity to complete his Venezuelan-inspired transformation of the US.

That's simply not true.  The only things Obama wanted that he wasn't able to get in his final six years were slightly higher spending, slightly higher taxes, and an immigration amnesty.
I'm not saying any of these things are good, but, none of those things are anything like what Venezuela has.
In Venezuela, the government owns oil companies and food processing, has price controls on food and gas, and doesn't let you import anything without completing a lot of paperwork proving that you tried to have it made in Venezuela. 
Obama came into office with the government owning AIG, GM, and Chrysler.  Hugo Chavez would have called that a good start.  Obama sold these assets back to the private market.  He was not a socialist.

Traditional socialist.  He was more of an economic national socialist (for political expedience not core ideology).  

Also, u left out the carbon tax which would have wrecked the economy, forced transition to green energy that would have wrecked the economy and u and those who carry Obama's economic water leave out the fact that a.) He supported the policies that lead to 08 (and the collapse of all the health care co-ops) b.) Generally, the greater the recession the stronger the recovery.  This whole "well the recession was really deep" is actually a further INDICTMENT on him never reaching 3% gdp in a single year (first president ever).

---

That's simply not true.  The only things Obama wanted that he wasn't able to get in his final six years were slightly higher spending, slightly higher taxes, and an immigration amnesty.
I'm not saying any of these things are good, but, none of those things are anything like what Venezuela has.
In Venezuela, the government owns oil companies and food processing, has price controls on food and gas, and doesn't let you import anything without completing a lot of paperwork proving that you tried to have it made in Venezuela. 
Obama came into office with the government owning AIG, GM, and Chrysler.  Hugo Chavez would have called that a good start.  Obama sold these assets back to the private market.  He was not a socialist.

Traditional socialist.  He was more of an economic national socialist (for political expedience not core ideology).  

Also, u left out the carbon tax which would have wrecked the economy, forced transition to green energy that would have wrecked the economy and u and those who carry Obama's economic water leave out the fact that a.) He supported the policies that lead to 08 (and the collapse of all the health care co-ops) b.) Generally, the greater the recession the stronger the recovery.  This whole "well the recession was really deep" is actually a further INDICTMENT on him never reaching 3% gdp in a single year (first president ever).

Obama was no kind of socialist. He was for a bigger welfare state, not socialism. Those are two very different things.

The carbon tax was not discussed by anyone in power while Obama was President. A carbon tax would not be a bad idea so long as it was paired with cuts to other taxes.

Obama wanted a cap and trade system (which was a very bad idea) but his own party balked.  That was before Republicans regained Congress.  So you could give negative points to Obama for proposing it but you'd also have to give positive points to the moderate Democrats who blocked it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Traditional socialist.  He was more of an economic national socialist (for political expedience not core ideology).  

Also, u left out the carbon tax which would have wrecked the economy, forced transition to green energy that would have wrecked the economy and u and those who carry Obama's economic water leave out the fact that a.) He supported the policies that lead to 08 (and the collapse of all the health care co-ops) b.) Generally, the greater the recession the stronger the recovery.  This whole "well the recession was really deep" is actually a further INDICTMENT on him never reaching 3% gdp in a single year (first president ever).

Obama was no kind of socialist.  He was for a bigger welfare state, not socialism.  Those are two very different things.  

The carbon tax was not discussed by anyone in power while Obama was President. A carbon tax would not be a bad idea so long as it was paired with cuts to other taxes.

Obama wanted a cap and trade system (which was a very bad idea) but his own party balked.  That was before Republicans regained Congress.  So you could give negative points to Obama for proposing it but you'd also have to give positive points to the moderate Democrats who blocked it.

A.) You didn't do ur homework on German state theory or the economics of fascism.  I'll let it slide this time, but u better be prepared next class young man.  

B.) The Democratic house passed cap and trade (a concept I use interchangeably with that of a carbon tax.)  And yes, there used to be at least some sane people in the Democratic party. Its not a plus for the president that the adults in his own party had to block a campaign promise.  

C.) Still no one taking up the realitities of his economic philodophy and it's role in the housing collapse.  Sad sad sad.

---

Traditional socialist.  He was more of an economic national socialist (for political expedience not core ideology).  

Also, u left out the carbon tax which would have wrecked the economy, forced transition to green energy that would have wrecked the economy and u and those who carry Obama's economic water leave out the fact that a.) He supported the policies that lead to 08 (and the collapse of all the health care co-ops) b.) Generally, the greater the recession the stronger the recovery.  This whole "well the recession was really deep" is actually a further INDICTMENT on him never reaching 3% gdp in a single year (first president ever).

Obama was no kind of socialist.  He was for a bigger welfare state, not socialism.  Those are two very different things.  

The carbon tax was not discussed by anyone in power while Obama was President. A carbon tax would not be a bad idea so long as it was paired with cuts to other taxes.

Obama wanted a cap and trade system (which was a very bad idea) but his own party balked.  That was before Republicans regained Congress.  So you could give negative points to Obama for proposing it but you'd also have to give positive points to the moderate Democrats who blocked it.

I agree Obama was not a socialist based on the original definition, although the definition has been expanded these days to include essentially any redistributionist who is not also a totalitarian.

Obama was a Marxist, as was Chavez, and wanted to redistribute wealth like Chavez. The ACA was a Marxist policy that Obama successfully pushed through, but it also brought Scott Brown to the Senate which ended Obama's Marxist dream.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Wow! When we get done sucking our own [BLEEP], maybe we should look at the deficit. No? Mmkay.. I tried.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Wow! When we get done sucking our own [BLEEP], maybe we should look at the deficit. No? Mmkay.. I tried.

Only when Pubs are in office fer sure.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Obama was no kind of socialist.  He was for a bigger welfare state, not socialism.  Those are two very different things.  

The carbon tax was not discussed by anyone in power while Obama was President. A carbon tax would not be a bad idea so long as it was paired with cuts to other taxes.

Obama wanted a cap and trade system (which was a very bad idea) but his own party balked.  That was before Republicans regained Congress.  So you could give negative points to Obama for proposing it but you'd also have to give positive points to the moderate Democrats who blocked it.

A.) You didn't do ur homework on German state theory or the economics of fascism.  I'll let it slide this time, but u better be prepared next class young man.  

B.) The Democratic house passed cap and trade (a concept I use interchangeably with that of a carbon tax.)  And yes, there used to be at least some sane people in the Democratic party. Its not a plus for the president that the adults in his own party had to block a campaign promise.  

C.) Still no one taking up the realitities of his economic philodophy and it's role in the housing collapse.  Sad sad sad.

A) The National Socialist Party of Germany had the government dictating the choices made in key industries -both on the management side and the labor unions side - but the original owners of the factories were typically allowed to make and keep profits, so long as they were not Jewish, of course. You could argue that, to the extent that regulations are overbearing, our government today is dictating choices in industry. But one of our two parties wants to limit the choices available to management, while the other is trying to limit the choices available to labor unions.

B) Cap and trade is totally different from a carbon tax.  Read up on it.  Seriously.  I don't want to say you're an idiot, but to me, what you said is somewhere between saying health care and health insurance are the same thing, and saying dogs and children are the same thing

C) I honestly don't know what role a state senator in Illinois may have played in allowing banks all over the country to get over leveraged with risky loans that were labeled as "not risky."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

For anyone who cares, Q2 GDP has been updated from 4.1 to 4.2%.

2 more scoops of winning.

---

A.) You didn't do ur homework on German state theory or the economics of fascism.  I'll let it slide this time, but u better be prepared next class young man.  

B.) The Democratic house passed cap and trade (a concept I use interchangeably with that of a carbon tax.)  And yes, there used to be at least some sane people in the Democratic party. Its not a plus for the president that the adults in his own party had to block a campaign promise.  

C.) Still no one taking up the realitities of his economic philodophy and it's role in the housing collapse.  Sad sad sad.

A) The National Socialist Party of Germany had the government dictating the choices made in key industries -both on the management side and the labor unions side - but the original owners of the factories were typically allowed to make and keep profits, so long as they were not Jewish, of course. You could argue that, to the extent that regulations are overbearing, our government today is dictating choices in industry. But one of our two parties wants to limit the choices available to management, while the other is trying to limit the choices available to labor unions.

B) Cap and trade is totally different from a carbon tax.  Read up on it.  Seriously.  I don't want to say you're an idiot, but to me, what you said is somewhere between saying health care and health insurance are the same thing, and saying dogs and children are the same thing

C) I honestly don't know what role a state senator in Illinois may have played in allowing banks all over the country to get over leveraged with risky loans that were labeled as "not risky."

A.) Go deeper.  The basic principal is that the state fundamentally controls everything as a function of state social policy.  The profit motive is driven not by personal innovation but by centrally planned state aims.  

And we aren't trying to limit options we are trying to limit coercion.  

B.) Liar liar, both are a means of taxation artificially making certain kinds of energy more expensive.   It's childish.  America lead the world in carbon reductions while the Paris countries actually increased carbon emissions.  The state can't make sure that soldiers have their toiletries but they can micro-manage the atmosphere?  Lol.  

C.) What did he believe.  What did he advocate.  How did that play out.  

DETENTION!!!!!  

LOL.

---

For anyone who cares, Q2 GDP has been updated from 4.1 to 4.2%.

2 more scoops of winning.

GDP goes up with high immigration rates and government spending. 

I take it you are pro that.

---

Obama only signed the acts that brought America out of the Great Recession and started our economy trending positively, resulting in GDP growth every year of his second term.

Man, it must be amazing to ride the coattails of someone with actual economic sense.  Good for Trump to reap all the reward from the ignorant masses.

But you don't dispute the fact Obama never sniffed 3% GDP. Got it.

If convincing yourself that Obama assisted the current economy makes you sleep better at night, then so be it. This roaring economy has nothing to do with the crippling regulations Trump slashed or tax reform.

Make sure you pull your head out of the sand and come up for air every so often.

Edit: Oh, and if the economy were in the crapper, Obama would have nothing to do with that, right?

Obama never had 3% GDP, but the current growth is a direct result of his policy.  If the economy were terrible, it would be his fault.  I wasn't an Obama voter.  I just happen to know and understand how economics works.

---

But you don't dispute the fact Obama never sniffed 3% GDP. Got it.

If convincing yourself that Obama assisted the current economy makes you sleep better at night, then so be it. This roaring economy has nothing to do with the crippling regulations Trump slashed or tax reform.

Make sure you pull your head out of the sand and come up for air every so often.

Edit: Oh, and if the economy were in the crapper, Obama would have nothing to do with that, right?

Obama never had 3% GDP, but the current growth is a direct result of his policy.  If the economy were terrible, it would be his fault.  I wasn't an Obama voter.  I just happen to know and understand how economics works.

You literally have zero clue what you are talking about.

---

But you don't dispute the fact Obama never sniffed 3% GDP. Got it.

If convincing yourself that Obama assisted the current economy makes you sleep better at night, then so be it. This roaring economy has nothing to do with the crippling regulations Trump slashed or tax reform.

Make sure you pull your head out of the sand and come up for air every so often.

Edit: Oh, and if the economy were in the crapper, Obama would have nothing to do with that, right?

Obama never had 3% GDP, but the current growth is a direct result of his policy.  If the economy were terrible, it would be his fault.  I wasn't an Obama voter.  I just happen to know and understand how economics works.

Which policy?

---

Obama never had 3% GDP, but the current growth is a direct result of his policy.  If the economy were terrible, it would be his fault.  I wasn't an Obama voter.  I just happen to know and understand how economics works.

Which policy?

Apparently the policy he is referring to was put into place in year 8.

---

A) The National Socialist Party of Germany had the government dictating the choices made in key industries -both on the management side and the labor unions side - but the original owners of the factories were typically allowed to make and keep profits, so long as they were not Jewish, of course. You could argue that, to the extent that regulations are overbearing, our government today is dictating choices in industry. But one of our two parties wants to limit the choices available to management, while the other is trying to limit the choices available to labor unions.

B) Cap and trade is totally different from a carbon tax.  Read up on it.  Seriously.  I don't want to say you're an idiot, but to me, what you said is somewhere between saying health care and health insurance are the same thing, and saying dogs and children are the same thing

C) I honestly don't know what role a state senator in Illinois may have played in allowing banks all over the country to get over leveraged with risky loans that were labeled as "not risky."

A.) Go deeper.  The basic principal is that the state fundamentally controls everything as a function of state social policy.  The profit motive is driven not by personal innovation but by centrally planned state aims.  

And we aren't trying to limit options we are trying to limit coercion.  

B.) Liar liar, both are a means of taxation artificially making certain kinds of energy more expensive.   It's childish.  America lead the world in carbon reductions while the Paris countries actually increased carbon emissions.  The state can't make sure that soldiers have their toiletries but they can micro-manage the atmosphere?  Lol.  

C.) What did he believe.  What did he advocate.  How did that play out.  

DETENTION!!!!!  

LOL.

A) I don't think any of this is relevant to the point that either of us are trying to make.

B) a cap-and-trade scheme doesn't necessarily involve anybody giving more money to the government. The government does a one-time auction of pollution licenses, but the amount of money the government raises this way is not significant to the plan and the initial price is supposed to be low. These licenses can then be traded on the private Market as the individual needs of the companies that bought the licenses change. this gives you greater certainty about the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere in a given year, but the companies that have to buy and trade these licenses will not have very much certainty about the price from year to year. so as they do anything that is energy-intensive, they will face the uncertainty about the cost of the fuel itself plus the uncertainty of the cost of the license. and the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time. The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis and does not add to uncertainty.

C) the only thing that I know about Obama in his State Senate years were is speech against the Iraq War. so you tell me what he believed and advocated for and how that played out.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Spending increases are driving this, but [BLEEP] the deficit, right? We're borrowing more than we have since 2008, but [BLEEP] all that. Am I right? Revenue up, but spending is up more. But screw numbers. Did you see that birdie Trump had on 17? Sure the civilian federal workers get their raises axed, but have you seen the tax cuts the elite rich got? Why complain?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

But you don't dispute the fact Obama never sniffed 3% GDP. Got it.

If convincing yourself that Obama assisted the current economy makes you sleep better at night, then so be it. This roaring economy has nothing to do with the crippling regulations Trump slashed or tax reform.

Make sure you pull your head out of the sand and come up for air every so often.

Edit: Oh, and if the economy were in the crapper, Obama would have nothing to do with that, right?

Obama never had 3% GDP, but the current growth is a direct result of his policy.  If the economy were terrible, it would be his fault.  I wasn't an Obama voter.  I just happen to know and understand how economics works.

Can you explain how the current growth seen today is a direct result of one or more of President Obama's policies?  Please don't use the "he brought us out of a recession" argument.  The bank bailouts and the bailouts of the auto industry were already pretty much put into place before he even took the Oath of Office.

His "cash for clunkers" policy was a total failure and a waste of money.

Obamacare (aka The Affordable Care Act) was also a failure, especially when it comes to the economy.

So please explain how the current growth of the economy is a "direct result" of President Obama's policy(s).

A.) Go deeper.  The basic principal is that the state fundamentally controls everything as a function of state social policy.  The profit motive is driven not by personal innovation but by centrally planned state aims.  

And we aren't trying to limit options we are trying to limit coercion.  

B.) Liar liar, both are a means of taxation artificially making certain kinds of energy more expensive.   It's childish.  America lead the world in carbon reductions while the Paris countries actually increased carbon emissions.  The state can't make sure that soldiers have their toiletries but they can micro-manage the atmosphere?  Lol.  

C.) What did he believe.  What did he advocate.  How did that play out.  

DETENTION!!!!!  

LOL.

A) I don't think any of this is relevant to the point that either of us are trying to make.

B) a cap-and-trade scheme doesn't necessarily involve anybody giving more money to the government. The government does a one-time auction of pollution licenses, but the amount of money the government raises this way is not significant to the plan and the initial price is supposed to be low. These licenses can then be traded on the private Market as the individual needs of the companies that bought the licenses change. this gives you greater certainty about the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere in a given year, but the companies that have to buy and trade these licenses will not have very much certainty about the price from year to year.  so as they do anything that is energy-intensive, they will face the uncertainty about the cost of the fuel itself plus the uncertainty of the cost of the license. and the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time.  The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis and does not add to uncertainty.

C) the only thing that I know about Obama in his State Senate years were is speech against the Iraq War. so you tell me what he believed and advocated for and how that played out.

A pollution license.  Just think about that concept for a minute.

Meanwhile, you stated under B) that it "doesn't involve anybody giving more money to the government".  Then towards the end of your statement you state that the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time, yet your very next sentence states "The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis"...  It's all in the underlined part of your quote.

So here are direct questions for you.

1)  Does another tax involve someone giving more money to the government?

2)  Will the government collect any revenue on an ongoing basis or would it be a one time tax?

3)  Are you saying that releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere should be taxed?  Is that what a "pollution license" is supposed to be for?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Obama never had 3% GDP, but the current growth is a direct result of his policy.  If the economy were terrible, it would be his fault.  I wasn't an Obama voter.  I just happen to know and understand how economics works.

Can you explain how the current growth seen today is a direct result of one or more of President Obama's policies?  Please don't use the "he brought us out of a recession" argument.  The bank bailouts and the bailouts of the auto industry were already pretty much put into place before he even took the Oath of Office.

His "cash for clunkers" policy was a total failure and a waste of money.

Obamacare (aka The Affordable Care Act) was also a failure, especially when it comes to the economy.

So please explain how the current growth of the economy is a "direct result" of President Obama's policy(s).

A) I don't think any of this is relevant to the point that either of us are trying to make.

B) a cap-and-trade scheme doesn't necessarily involve anybody giving more money to the government. The government does a one-time auction of pollution licenses, but the amount of money the government raises this way is not significant to the plan and the initial price is supposed to be low. These licenses can then be traded on the private Market as the individual needs of the companies that bought the licenses change. this gives you greater certainty about the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere in a given year, but the companies that have to buy and trade these licenses will not have very much certainty about the price from year to year.  so as they do anything that is energy-intensive, they will face the uncertainty about the cost of the fuel itself plus the uncertainty of the cost of the license. and the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time.  The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis and does not add to uncertainty.

C) the only thing that I know about Obama in his State Senate years were is speech against the Iraq War. so you tell me what he believed and advocated for and how that played out.

A pollution license.  Just think about that concept for a minute.

Meanwhile, you stated under B) that it "doesn't involve anybody giving more money to the government".  Then towards the end of your statement you state that the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time, yet your very next sentence states "The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis"...  It's all in the underlined part of your quote.

So here are direct questions for you.

1)  Does another tax involve someone giving more money to the government?

2)  Will the government collect any revenue on an ongoing basis or would it be a one time tax?

3)  Are you saying that releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere should be taxed?  Is that what a "pollution license" is supposed to be for?

You are tripling down on your error.  The terms "cap and trade" and "carbon tax" are not interchangeable.

Cap  and Trade: government gets a small amount of revenue one time, and maybe intermittently after that. Amount of CO2 released within that country's borders does not exceed the cap. Cost impacts are not predictable, the value of the licenses/permits may vary widely, but the money is all changing hands between banks, insurers, and polluters, not the government.

Carbon tax: government gets a continuous stream of revenue.  Fuels cost a bit more, like when they raise the gas tax. There is no cap and people can pollute more, they'll just pay more tax.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Actually, quite the opposite. I capitalized on foreclosures.

---

Peoples inability to give Trump credit for ANYTHING is highly annoying. To pretend Trump has nothing to do with the current economy nearly 2 years since he was elected is just silly. At what point does Trump own the economy in the eyes of the loony left?

Have you given similar credit to Obama?

What credit is there to give to Obama? When he was running for reelection he was still blaming the economy on Bush. The guy was great at slowing down the rebound, I will give him credit for that. I don't want to overstate the impact of the president, but there is no doubt that Trump has been much better for the economy than Obama.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Have you given similar credit to Obama?

What credit is there to give to Obama? When he was running for reelection he was still blaming the economy on Bush. The guy was great at slowing down the rebound, I will give him credit for that. I don't want to overstate the impact of the president, but there is no doubt that Trump has been much better for the economy than Obama.

When he ran for re election he pointed out that 2008 was better economically than 2012.  Blaming Bush, no, not directly.
I'm don't know if Trump is better for the economy or not, and I think being sure that one was better is "overstating the impact of the President."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.