President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 22, 2008 10:42 PM UTC
55 Comments
Since it became clear in September that Obama was winning, stocks have plunged, unemployment has soared and the economic outlook has become incredibly hard to predict.
So investors are bailing, employers are laying people off and the poliiticians, including Obama, are fiddling.
Having helped put millions out of work and millions of jobs at risk in only a few months, Obama is promising to create jobs with government money that exists only in his imagination.
Certainly, there’s a chance that the economy and markets will recover by 2011 and that 2.5 million folks will go back to work, but nothing Congress or the president tries will create those jobs.
Indeed, that the Dems are promising bailouts to everyone but the Glendale strip joint operator, is scaring investors and employers even more. It shows a lack of fiscal discipline and understanding, and it signals that the economy is in worse shape that ever thought.
Tip: Expect the worst until it’s over-in two or three or five years.
Two, three, or five years? Thats too broad to have any meaning. The difference between the first and last estimation is 250%. Why don’t aren’t your calculations more precise?
Could you be… full of shit???
Here is a very important point people must remember:
and yes that is a link! so click on it if you want to read more!
Anybody who pretends to predict is trying to sell you a bridge to nowhere.
You people manage to go straight from blaming everything on Bill Clinton to blaming everything on Obama as if the intervening 8 years never happened. And you wonder why the GOP just got its ass handed to it. Could it be that the public actually prefers reality based policy?
You have no idea how ridiculous you sound.
You would have opposed the Civilian Conservation Corps too, I’ll bet.
This is the right track. This isn’t a “bailout” at all, and your characterizing as such shows how irrational you are.
.
If we all keep saying its only a recession,
and wish hard enough,
and click our heels 3 times,
then it will never be a D&p#&$$!0^.
.
I know that is a real tough concept for a pinhead to grasp, but go ask your mommy what it means.
Note also that BUSH is in the White House.
You and your ilk have been blaming Clinton for eight years for everything while saying that the good Clinton years were the result of Ronald Reagan…..Jeez, you righties are pathetic. The party of repsonsibility my ass pimple.
I had the misfortune of having my car radio on KOA and caught Rush Dumbbaugh stating the above bullshit. Can’t you come up with something original AS? This is the most ridiculous bunch of tripe.
The economy did not get to this point in just 6 months. It has taken 8 years to dissolve into this mess. You need to turn off Rush Limbaugh, and learn to read.
Speak the truth brother.!
First you tell AS “right on” but then you ask him to “speak the truth.” Since what he posted was total B.S. – your two statements conflict.
All the ignoramuses are coming out to support one another. Something tells me that AS, who has more than two firing neurons, won’t come out and thank them for their support.
Seek help before you hurt someone.
Blame Obama for the problems that Bush and his cronies worked very hard to create. Obama spent a trillion dollars on a war? You are a fool.
The Barney Frank Dems forced lenders, especially Fannie and Freddie, to lend to people who had no business borrowing, and they’re trying to force banks to do the same now despite the catastrophe they have caused.
Bush and many GOP members of Congress years ago tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, but Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank had the power to block all reform efforts and used it.
You can’t blame Bush for the irrational exuberance that caused housing prices to nearly double in five or six years nor for the market correction that’s going on now.
In light of Obama’s promises to bailout everyone but investors, this soon will be Obama’s Depression.
Man oh man, you again have no idea how pathetically ridiculous you come across.
Of course you don’t want to focus on the specifics offered by Pres-Elect Obama, especially the targeted investments in renewable energy. Instead you offer ridiculous sound bites.
Supposing you have a shred of truth of fact to base that theory on (which I am asking you to provide promptly), why would Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer want to provide sub-prime morgages to anyone?
Sub-prime morgages are high risk investment designed for companies and CEOs that dont intend to stick around very long. They are a quick buck from some not so nice people. Established corporations and the major lending institutions got the short end of the sub-prime stick which resulted in sky-rocketing housing prices and an eventual crash, probably costing Barny Frank, Chuck Schumer, and millions of Dems and Millions of republicans Billions of Dollars. Why? No one really benifits, so maybe we should focus on fixing some of the problems facing us, instead making things up.
The Dems have spent decades creating the subprime mortgages and the housing bubble. Subprime lending became especially onerous in the last few years, housing prices spiked and now they’re correcting.
Barney Frank et al are trying to keep it going. But the markets will be difficult to overpower this time.
While many think the government should step in and halt the decline in housing prices, that will only distort the markets more and prolong the housing depression, which is going to last a long time regardless.
This definitely is Barney Frank’s housing bubble and depression, and he’s getting away with destroying our economy.
The Dems asked for the loan rules to be fairly applied even for low-income households (previously, they were unfairly skewed – if you had low income, you could get zero loans, not a small loan). Low-income loans are not the bulk of the subprime garbage. Fanny and Freddie’s percentage of the overall loan market has gone down dramatically during all this (mostly, because they were not allowed from playing with the most toxic of the loans).
The Republicans are desperately selling storylines to try to avoid responsibility for this crash. You’re either shilling for the GOP, or a dupe.
While Congress may have been complicit, increasing homeownership by any means necessary was a goal of the Bushites.
Who was it that controlled the complicit Congress from 1995 until 2007?
And when did the bubble develop?
I had a colleague very seriously tell me that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd blocked legislation in 2002 that would have required more responsible lending practices. Ummm, I asked, how did they block the REPUBLICAN MAJORITY from passing this mythical legislation?
Apparently congressional Democrats have super powers. Or maybe they’re magic, I haven’t figured out which.
They make up their own as they go along, even if contradictory one to another or previous. For an exameple, see Wikipedia, “Another Sceptic.”
For Dems to have caused a problem since 2000 they would’ve needed to overturn vetoes. Unless the cons here are insinuating that Bush can’t read beyond Spot.
is a ridiculous loon.
Blaming a guy who has not yet taken office for a problem that is at the very least 4 years in the making is beyond spin. It is buffoonary.
I feel a little bad for AS, he actually believes what he writes. It indicates he is either very ill of suffers from cognitive disfunction.
But Obama has played a major role in getting us to this point despite his few years in the Senate. He supported those who sought to reform Fannie and Freddie, and his election has caused tremendous selling due to the uncertainty about what he’ll do once in power.
His selection of Timothy Geithner as sec of treasury may help calm the markets, however.
that AS is here to enlighten us all. Oh, if we all had only listened when we had the chance and told us not to vote for that commie nazi punk Obama.
AS, you are breathtakingly ignorant on this topic, and I say this as someone used to the amount of bullshit you fork around on this site. Please, let those of us who understand a bit about the connection of politics and economics discuss this without interruption.
pot calling the kettle black. What have YOU ever had to add to this site besides just calling R’s names?
Answer: NOTHING. You sneak on here to spew your lefty hatred rhetoric, call others who have different opions names, and then leave, like a coward.
And what is with your little tag at the end of your comments? You live in Colorado Springs? Or do you just wish you did?
Ah, a perfect example of projection! Especially the “kettle/black” part.
Sorry if my observations are above your head, but I don’t feel like dumbing myself down just so mental midgets like you can keep up.
I’ll take that last back if you can link to one of your own comments that contributed to any dialogue here. Just one.
A junior Senator had mosre power than Bush, the Republican congress & the judiciary? Who knew.
Do you realize how asinine you sound?
Yet at the same time, he somehow singlehandedly caused the economy to melt down. This is more than a little silly, regardless of your politics.
Pretty soon, we’ll have businesses proudly displaying the Blue Eagle, too. Or maybe the Glorious “O.” Either way bring on the jack-booted bureau-thugs telling folks how to sell their eggs to other folks.
I’m sure it’ll make things all better. It worked so well last time.
At least we’ll all feel better, what with fire-side YouTube chats and all. And, really, “feeling” better is more important than actually fixing the economy.
I think you guys in the military call it morale. Very important, no?
FDR ran on a campaign of hope, too. I don’t think it was his theme, but all uplifting themese are based on hope.
I guess you’d prefer the demoralization of the Hoover and Bush administrations.
You folks have been claiming to have the market cornered on it lo these past eight years – can I see some?
FDR’s “hope” pissed on the Constitution and made the Depression even worse. Where’s it going this time around?
Saying you prefer “reality,” then making a statement that shows a vivid imagination as to how FDR’s policies worked.
The Depression certainly got worse – in the short term. But so did the Cold War when a certain Ronald Reagan became president, and we know how that one turned out. Same with the Depression under FDR.
It was a study. By the “enlightened intellectual” class. It discovered that FDR’s policies did indeed made the Depression worse. Which is to say, if he’d done nothing, it wouldn’t have been worse. It would have been just part of your standard business cycle. (Which, by definition, comes around to Growth again) Instead, he reinvented the business cycle by creating the Depression-within-a-depression (see 1937).
Also, I’d say trying the pack the Supreme Court so you can railroad through all your brilliant brain-trust schemes is the definition of pissing on the Constitution.
Or is “imperial executive” only bad for you when it’s a Republican?
It’s all a guess at this point in history.
I agree that the GD may well, and in fact, probably would have, worked its way out eventually.
But instead of having unemployed men in soup lines they were building and rebuilding America and sending paychecks home. Now, how was that bad? And how much worse would the recession of 1937 have been without the CCC and WPA programs?
Economics is no more of a science than the social :sciences.”
And the question that started this thread had to do with the hope of a people. If hope and looking forward to the future is not important, then you might as well tear out every page of every military manual having to do with morale.
That’s one opinion. Show me that that’s the consensus among all the economists and I’ll buy it. My guess is that these guys are all strictly from the Friedman camp.
Chew on this for a bit: In a democracy government needs to respond to the will of the people. It was clear that laissez-faire policies under Hoover did not satisfy the people. They demanded action and got it from FDR. It would have been undemocratic of him not to respond to the people like this.
As far as the long-term benefits of FDR’s policies, those have lasted a lot longer than seven years. Parsing has made arguing that his specialty so I’ll defer to him on that point.
I wasn’t going to go after you for it, but if I don’t then how will you learn?
Links are much more effective when they come from nonpartisan sources. Any site that proudly proclaims they are “advancing the culture of free enterprise” is announcing that they’re of the laissez-faire school of thought and can be counted on to cherry-pick for reports like this one.
..so you win.
They were bureaucrats. Which I think is a fun image.
“If you build it, he will come”
What the f*#%? Is this rookie replacing Jesus now? Did I miss a day of church and he has become the lord almighty?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Get a life Go Bluey. Your rookie inexperienced senator is just that, a rookie inexperienced senator. And one that made big promises to avoid the “old ways” and try a fresh approach to being president.
What is the first thing the rookie does? He hires every old time professional politician he can find. Boy howdy. That approach will really bring about changes.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
next we’ll be hearing Obama is responsible for starting the war in Iraq. You right wing loons have really lost it. Turn the talk radio off and think for yourself for once.
You wrote that heading like this guy is going to part the seas, heal the sick, cure the blind, and eliminate war.
You are the moron.
And in four years when it is proven that he was no better than Jimmy “the peanut farmer” Carter, you’ll maybe understand.
Oh but wait, you’ll still blame Bush huh?
Idiots
In fact there’s actually documentation of Bush’s fuck-ups whereas the undocumented worker damage can’t really be proven. Pass that on to your dream governor.
for our economic crises, and they are plural. The mortgages were really a pretty small piece, at least those represented some type of investment. Our trillion dollar war on the other hand has only been an investment in Halliburton, Blackwater and international enmity.
We don’t have inflation right now, but it is almost inevitable with all those dollars that are surely being printed. Lets all remember that that is also the responsibility of Bush.
When I first heard of the possible bailout I asked myself what I would do. I’m sure many on this site did as well. Though the youtube doesn’t specify there is much news about Obama’s plan being healthcare and infrastructure. Remember during the campaign when we heard that universal health care would cost $100 billion and many thought that was too much? If that is what it costs that is a bargain. Do it. Infrastructure? Those bridges, roads, rails, etc have to be repaired. That will cost several hundred billion, or more, whenever it is done. More than a million people have lost jobs this year. Put them and others to work. This amounts to close to full employment in every part of the country. They’ll be paying taxes that some portion of will go to support the healthcare.
Please do these things Mr. President Obama.
I only ask that in all of this investment, please, please, exclude Halliburton et al from the profit chain.
A trillion bucks of government spending over 5 years is bad, but a trillion bucks of government spending in a week and a half is good?
I need to find your accountant.
Spending money on an unnecessary war is a waste fo funds (and lives). Spending money on infrastructure we need is an investment in the future.
It’s like the difference between spending money on getting totally drunk 24/7 vs spending it to get a college education.
The whole “unnecessary war” thing. Basically, we could have spent a buck-oh-five, and you’d still be bitching. But Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia were all good.
You want Return on Investment? How does a democratic ally in the Middle East, and a pluralist example of a free society amidst oil-monarchies (at best) and out right despotisms sound as return on investment?
Remaking the face of international politics in our favor for the same cost of an ill-advised bail out? Sounds like a bargain.
I rather doubt that a soldier in the war zones (you) is in a position to see the big picture. After all, no war means Yokel needs to create a new self image.
I’ll add that the wars you mention were brief, had the support of other nations, and did not become quagmires like Iraq.
Sounds like a pie in the sky dream right now. Sounds like something that has not yet been attained, so it can’t be logically used in this argument like you are doing. Sounds like what someone who doesn’t understand that democracy has to be organically* grown within a society, and not foisted upon it from without, in order to succeed. (There are rare examples where it happened anyway, but that was thanks in part to a lengthy occupation / military presence on part of the country that was “exporting democracy” at the time.)
If Iraq does indeed become a “pluralist example of a free society” it’s going to take decades to achieve. Autocratic societies don’t become democracies overnight. Look at Russia to see what I mean.
Sounds like a pie in the sky dream right now. Sounds like something that has not yet been attained, so it can’t be logically used in this argument like you are doing. Sounds like what someone who doesn’t understand that democracy has to be organically* grown within a society, and not foisted upon it from without, in order to succeed. (There are rare examples where it happened anyway, but that was thanks in part to a lengthy occupation / military presence on part of the country that was “exporting democracy” at the time.)
If Iraq does indeed become a “pluralist example of a free society” it’s going to take decades to achieve. Autocratic societies don’t become democracies overnight. Look at Russia to see what I mean.
So I was optimistic about Obama fixing the economy with the only thing that’s historically worked (infrastructure projects to create jobs), and then I read comments from Gecko, AS, and NAQD, and I wondered…
Can Obama really save the economy in a country filled with such stupid people? Remember, this is 46% of the country already.
Somewhat amusing.
The relationship to your text?
I guess it helps to know the premise, which is that in the future, everyone will be too stupid to function. In particular, too stupid to benefit from an economic stimulus. Perhaps a different clip would have worked better…
I’m a movie moron.
Done by Mike Judge, the same guy responsible for Office Space. Some people donВґt like it, claiming itВґs a one-joke movie. Which it kind of is, itВґs just a really really funny joke.