Five months into the Obama administration, the economy has gotten worse, not better. As I predicted in February, the misnamed $787 billion stimulus package would depress the economy rather than jumpstart it. Not only has the "stimulus" bill proved a sedative on jobs--more than 1.5 million have been lost since Obama took office--but it has exploded the deficit as well, which suggests a future of higher inflation. Yet, Obama boasts, "Now we're in a position to really accelerate." If only he didn't confuse the break for the gas pedal.

Is anybody else getting sick and tired of hearing Presidentis Incompetentis referring to the mess he inherited?

Yes, I am, but I suspect he'll be playing that card for another couple of years.

Have you read the "YOU SCARE ME" letter to Obama from the retired Procter and Gamble Ex.? If you havent you neen to because its poetic! You can read it here: http://www.conservativeoldhippie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4743 I choose this site over the other ones because of the picture of the three stooges! Read the letter, scrool down. God bless you. GL My story at www.hope7.highpowersites.com

Everyone knows that Obama inherited a mess from President Bush. As such, the people are giving him a considerable amount of slack, however, at some point people will expect his policies to bear positive fruit for the economy. Right now we are in the "Bush economy." I suspect Obama has until about the middle of 2010 for his policies to bear positive fruit with regards to the economy. If the economy is not markedly better or is worse than it is now by the mid 2010, it is likely that this will become the "Obama economy" If the "Obama economy" is markedly better by mid 2010 than it is now, Obama's Democrat allies will likely cruise to reelection. If the economy is not markedly better by mid 2010 than it is now or is worse than it is now, Obama's Democrat allies will have a difficult holding onto the House and Senate in the next election.

B.Poster,

Have you stopped to consider that the Democrat controlled Congress, for two years during Bush's last years, ran the show and laid the ground work for the fiasco that we now see Obama and his kids completely mishandling?

And have you also considered that the incompetent, inexperienced used care salesman from Chicago voted for ALL of the party line policies that the Democrat controlled Congress foisted on this nation in that time?

More than anything Bush or the Republicans did, I think a good example of where our problems accelerated was Barney Frank. The Harvard Lawyer who would be Chairman of the House Finance committee who in July of 2008 told us that the mortg@ge market along with Freddie Mac and Fannie May were sound.

Admittedly, things were not good coming in for Obama. But it wasn't totally Bush's fault and Obama'a misguided Marxist policies have done nothing but prolong the pain and have successfully f'ed up our economy and our standing in the world in the process.

We don't neeed not steeinking budget....

"Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care

Obama-proposed budget rules allow deficits to swell to pay for health care plan

Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
On Tuesday June 9, 2009, 8:43 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul."

Bush's recession? Obama did more for the CRA and Fannie and Freddie than Bush ever did. It's the CRA and Mark-to-market that started it all off. Credit Default swaps were to allow a finance firm to retain value in light of the diminished value of the bundled mortgag packages. Now, they were done atrociously and there was nothing really behind them--as it turned out, but it's basically because too big of gaps arose too soon.

In the rising economy both business and the government got hooked into practices that worked only as long as the economy kept advancing. My brother-in-law who works in finance said that many of the bundled securities retained 90-95% of their value, but M2M forced unrealized losses to look like realized losses on paper.

Bush can be blamed for TARP, but it's silly when Obama, just a couple months down the road, made an almost equal outlay, to then pretend that Obama is just inheriting this mess. It's not like Bush can be blamed in some way that Obama can't--meanwhile, Obama can be blamed for a good portion that Bush can't.

The economy has gotten worse because it is still undergoing a correction from an 8 trillion dollar housing bubble compounded by a credit crunch, trade deficit, and wanton overconsumption. This is not Obama's recession, although a targetted bailout of Wall Street which redistributes wealth upwards, which has been proposed and implemented by the Bush-Paulson/Obama-Geithner regimes, as it has been redistributed for decades (real wages have stagnated or declined since 1979), will compound the problem.

This problem was not created by Obama, although it will be perpetuated if there isn't a fundamental restructuring of our economy away from consumption and back toward production. Targetted tax cuts which benefit narrow sectors of the economy, which have been defended by Reagan to Bush, and now Obama-Geithner, are what have destroyed our economy.

We need to start making things the world uses, instead of buying what the world makes. That will raise the standard of living for all Americans. A constant manufacturing of bubbles (80's insurance, 90's dotcom/tech, 00's housing) won't fix anything. But I suppose it's convenient to blame Obama, and ignore the sins of Reagan to Bush 1 and 2.