You Have 90 Days To Fix The Economy Obama

Barack Obama you have 90 days to have the economy turned around and things fixed. If you do not have it fixed in 90 days you will be a failed president and have served the shortest amount of time before having a failed presidency.

I know that some of your mindless drones will say that my demand is unreasonable but you gave me the expectation and sense of urgency and now you have to live up to it. It was you and the idiots in your party who claimed that we must act NOW. There will be a catastrophe if we fail to act NOW. Time is of the essence and the longer we wait more people will lose their jobs. You and your minions impressed upon the public the absolute urgency of the situation and now you are required to demonstrate quick action in fixing the economy.

I understand that the bill will do little in the first year and a little more in the second and I have read where some of your people are trying to downplay expectations.


You set high goals and our expectations are very high because you used the politics of fear to insist that the country was in such terrible shape that we needed to act now. You people acted so quickly that you broke a number of promises to push this bill through. You broke your promise on transparency, you broke your promise to publish bills for 5 days before a vote, you lied about there being no earmarks (or pork) and the Congress broke its promise to have it up for 48 hours before it was voted on. You broke you promise with regard to lobbyists when K street had the bill before staffers.

Obama, none of you could have possibly read the bill. It was so urgent that it get passed that you all did not read it. Democrats just gave it to the lobbyists for approval and then voted yes for a pile of papers that contained God knows what. This was all in the name of urgency because people continue to lose jobs while the bill is debated so let’s not debate, just vote yes.

Well, I expect there to be NO job losses for March and from here on out. You must be adding jobs by the end of March because you made it clear that not passing the bill would mean more lost jobs so passing the bill means no more lost jobs. You made it clear that the economy needed a jump start and that the longer we waited the deeper we went into the chasm. It has passed now so I expect the economy to begin rebounding in 90 days. If it has not then you lied. If the economy is not better in 90 days then the urgency was all contrived so that you could quickly push through your liberal pork package while everyone was caught up in the fear you instilled.

90 days Barack. That is all you have to get the economy in shape and have it starting on the mend. I know your folks are saying it will take a while but you do not have a while. It was urgent for this to be passed to avert catastrophe (your words) so now you have 90 days.

If you do not have things under control then you will be a failure.

I want to make it clear. You needed this bill so badly that there could be no prolonged debate and you worked drug deals in back rooms. It had to be done immediately. You inferred that anyone who did not vote for it was unpatriotic and you made it clear that it had to happen now. You had no patience for debate. It had to be done now.

Well Barry, we are impatient as well. We want jobs NOW. We want credit NOW. We want the stimulus to begin working NOW. We will not allow you to steamroll the bill through and then stonewall on the results. You wanted immediate action AND SO DO WE. You do not have a year, or two, or three. You have 90 days.

That is about 4 times longer than you gave Congress to pass the bill. A year or two or three is unsatisfactory. Immediately means right fricking now and not way off in the future.

You have 90 days or you are a failure.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

27 Responses to “You Have 90 Days To Fix The Economy Obama”

  1. David Kabamf says:

    I am in the US for 5 years as a student at UIC from
    Angola, I must say am amazed at the level is functional illiteracy in these the United states.
    It appears anyone freedom of speech in this country has availed to to fool and wise to rant unchecked.
    If one feels they had a right or supreme view subjecting it as you have to public scrutiny is a good thing, whether the public finds the expressed view right is for the public to determine. If the view is tailored to appeal to a sector of the public as views expressed here appear, you malign or distort the general image visitors may have about America.
    If this is a democracy, why do republicans appeal so intolerant of the democratic ideals, you might as well just overthrow them as declare a republican dictatorship otherwise show me the divergent views can coexists without acrimony.

    • Victoria says:

      This is not–or was not–a democracy. It was founded as a free Republic (hence Republicans) run by a limited government and law and not what is popular or expedient at the time. True freedom cannot coexist with tyranny and many thousands of men have died in this country to preserve just that both here and elsewhere.

  2. Barbara says:

    Hey Big Dog, why don’t you send this blog to the President? I think it is great!

  3. Bunny Colvin says:

    Crazy wack post, Doggie. You’re really slipping.

    “Well, I expect there to be NO job losses for March and from here on out. You must be adding jobs by the end of March because you made it clear that not passing the bill would mean more lost jobs so passing the bill means no more lost jobs.”

    As I’ve pointed out before, a logician you are not. Your second demand in the quote above is clearly flawed, at least to anyone who’s ever taken an introductory level philosophy class. Eeesh.

  4. Big Dog says:

    The economy was going to fix itself. Obama said we had to pass the future generation bankruptcy plan or it would be a catastrophe.

    I want the same urgency with results as we needed for the plan.

  5. Adam says:

    It’s one thing to argue which plan of action is the best: tax cuts or spending. It’s another thing to suggest the economy was going to fix itself. Right, while we lose another 3 million jobs we can all just wait around for the market to correct itself and make everything rosy. Anyone talking about letting this recession just fix itself obviously isn’t too affected by it yet.

    The fact that recovery will take so long is precisely the reason they don’t want to wait and sit around debating on a plan of action. Find me one significant person in this debate saying they believe in a quick recovery. You won’t find them. You’re a liar.

    Truth is we could boom in 90 days and you’d still be calling Obama a failure because you have nothing to add to the conversation other than your partisan nonsense.

    • Big Dog says:

      The truth is that if the economy fixed itself in 90 days Obama would have nothing to do with it. It takes longer for government action to have an effect.

      He made it an urgency and now I want urgency.

      The reality is and history shows us that the market will work it out. Government intervention slows down the process.

      It is a fact that government policy caused this but when we go into recession and it is a normal cycle we say that government did not cause it so why is it that government has to fix it. The problem is that people believe that we should never have a down market and it should always be good. No economist will say that it works that way.

      If you and Obama believe that government is the only thing that can fix it then you are admitting that government caused it.

      The market would work out of this. The CBO says that it will and also says this plan will cause worse problems.

      Not affected? I have lost more than some people make in a year in my investments. To say we are not affected because we want SOUND principles to be used is a narrow minded vision and plays into the Obama “it is my way” mentality.

      Fine, it is a done deal but it belongs to the Democrats and when it fails it is on them.

      I know you will have excuses for them but it wont wash.

      You all can’t blame George Bush when this house of cards falls.

      Partisan nonsense? We saw all that in DC since 1/20. I am open to ideas from all but let’s face it, they can’t defend most of the stuff in there as stimulus.

      I know it is hard for people like you who believe government should take care of everyone but the reality is government IS the problem.

  6. Adam says:

    The CBO also says there was a surplus under Clinton but I haven’t seen you cite that.

    The CBO has said good and bad things about the stimulus. Most of the bad comes in the form of reduced growth over the next 10 years. But they will tell you they believe the bill will stimulate the economy in the short term to get job growth up:

    In CBO’s judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation. With the legislation, CBO estimates, output would be between 1.3 percent and 3.6 percent higher at the end of this year, higher by a similar amount at the end of next year, and 0.5 percent to 1.4 percent higher at the end of 2011. That additional production would raise the demand for workers, turning some part-time jobs into full-time jobs and boosting the number of people employed. According to CBO’s estimates, the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year, 1.2 million to 3.6 million higher at the end of next year, and 0.7 million to 2.1 million higher at the end of 2011.

    I understand the importance and security of investments but let me know when they keep you and your family from paying the bills and putting food on the table while folks sit around saying they want to wait for the market to correct itself…

  7. Big Dog says:

    We already discussed Clinton. You can say he had a surplus using the accounting methods the government uses, the one that ignores intergovernmental debt. If you shift enough debt that way anyone can have a surplus but the debt you don’t count still has to be paid.

    The report indicates that the time line for both is the same. So we can have problems and correct in a year or we can spend a trillion and start to correct in a year. One of those does not involve spending a trillion dollars.

    Mouse habitats, STD prevention, and TV converter boxes do not stimulate the economy and neither will much of the other non stimulating spending.

    I save money during good times so when bad times hit I have resources. It is called being responsible. I also have a good family network.

    The stimulating they discuss is an estimate and is no higher than if we did nothing or only spent money that actually did some stimulating.

    10 years? Way to kick that can down the road.

    The forecast also anticipates low inflation. Infusing that borrowed money will cause inflation to skyrocket.

    We also had a stimulus bill last year at this time. Look how well it worked.

  8. Adam says:

    So again let’s just state for the record that you are simply changing the definition of what the government considers a “surplus” is so that you can say Clinton had no surplus because you hate Clinton.

    The report does not say doing nothing results in the same as doing something minus the debt and it’s a lie to say so.

    Let me quote a larger chunk to make my point:

    The expected severity and persistence of economic weakness have led the great majority
    of economists to think that both large-scale fiscal stimulus and significant new
    financial and monetary policies are needed to generate a strong recovery in the next
    few years. Fiscal stimulus policies are most effective if they are timely, are costeffective,
    and do not exacerbate the nation’s long-run fiscal imbalance. But designing
    effective stimulus on the scale that the Congress is considering—that is, satisfying all
    three of these criteria at once—is difficult.
    Moreover, the macroeconomic impact of stimulus legislation is not the only consideration
    in designing it. Policymakers and members of the public clearly care also about
    who will be helped most directly by the legislation and what goods and services society
    will receive for the money involved. Constructing a stimulus package that both is
    effective in spurring economic activity and satisfies those broader objectives is even
    more challenging.
    H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, would provide massive
    fiscal stimulus that includes a combination of government spending increases and
    revenue reductions.

    Let’s not cite the CBO only when they can make your point and ignore everything else they are saying…

  9. Big Dog says:

    We have been through this before and I am tired of explaining it to you. I did not change any definition. I told you before, the government does not include its own debt when it calculates. That is a mathematical fallacy.

    The CBO uses the government definition and when you read the definitions of the terms it uses it is clear that it EXCLUDES billions of dollars of DEBT. You cannot have a surplus if you owe money.

    It is the way politicians play with numbers. Clinton had no surplus because we still owed billions of dollars on intergovernmental debt.

    It would be like saying that in order to be considered a combat death in Iraq you had to be facing more than 10,000 enemy combatants at the time you were killed. Anything less than that when you were killed and you are not considered a combat death.

    Under that definition there would be no combat deaths in Iraq. Would you be satisfied with that definition and would you say that there were no deaths or would you say it is BS and there are deaths? If the CBO, citing money for the war declared that there were no combat deaths but we keep spending money for coffins would you accept that or ask how it could be?

    The same thing holds true with debt. Just because they define it one way does not mean we do not owe the money.

    As for the CBO, I understand what they are saying. This is from January and the bill has changed a bit. We can argue all we want on their estimates which the entire report basically says that doing nothing will have an effect and spending trillions will have an effect and they will both be about the same time though stimulus will be spent over years, urgency and all. The recession will be over before this money is spent but they will still spend it.

    from you quote:
    Fiscal stimulus policies are most effective if they are timely, are costeffective,
    and do not exacerbate the nation’s long-run fiscal imbalance.

    This one is not timely and it runs up the nation’s fiscal imbalance.

    Regardless, it is a done deal and Obama owns it.

    And just so you know, there could be effective stimulus of they feel that something needs to be done. However, the items in the bill are not stimulative. Explain how any of these will fix the economy:

    * $24 million for United States Department of Agriculture buildings and rent
    * $176 million for renovating Agricultural Research Service buildings
    * $290 million for flood prevention
    * $50 million for watershed rehabilitation
    * $1.4 billion for wastewater disposal programs
    * $295 million for administrative expenses associated with food stamp programs
    * $1 billion for the 2010 Census
    * $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
    * $650 million for the digital TV converter box coupon program
    * $2 billion for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program
    * $10 million to combat Mexican gunrunners
    * $125 million for rural communities to combat drug crimes
    * $1 billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services program
    * $1 billion for NASA
    * $300 million to purchase scientific instruments for colleges and museums
    * $400 million for equipment and facilities at the National Science Foundation
    * $3.7 billion to conduct “green” renovations on military bases
    * $375 million for Mississippi River projects
    * $10 million for urban canals
    * $5 billion for weatherizing buildings
    * $2 billion to develop advanced batteries for hybrid cars
    * $3.4 billion for fossil energy research
    * $5.1 billion for environmental cleanup around military bases
    * $5.5 billion for “green” federal buildings
    * $300 million for “green” cars for federal employees
    * $20 million for IT upgrades at the Small Business Administration
    * $200 million to design and furnish Department of Homeland Security headquarters
    * $98 million earmarked for a polar icebreaker
    * $210 million for State and local fire stations
    * $125 million to restore trails and abandoned mines
    * $146 million for trail maintenance at National Park Service sites
    * $140 million for volcano monitoring systems
    * $600 million for the Environmental Protection Agency Superfund environmental cleanup program
    * $200 million to clean up leaking underground storage tanks
    * $500 million for forest health and wildfire prevention
    * $25 million for the Smithsonian Institution
    * $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
    * $1.2 billion for “youth activities” (for “youth” up to 24 years old)
    * $500 million earmarked for National Institute of Health facilities
    * $1 billion for Head Start Program
    * $32 million for home-delivered nutrition services
    * $160 million for volunteer programs at the Corporation for National and Community Service
    * $500 million earmarked for the SSA National Computer Center in Maryland
    * $220 million for the International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. and Mexico
    * $8 billion for high-speed railways (This amount is 4 times higher than the one voted on Tuesday in the Senate bill)
    * $1.3 billion for Amtrak

  10. Adam says:

    How will any of those fix the economy? Do you have brain damage? Something in your head makes you think the money is just going into a hole to be burned.

    You act as if all that project and grant money isn’t going create demand for new jobs, research, development, manufacturing and labor. That building ships and office buildings, weatherizing buildings, or developing new technology and science isn’t going to put anybody to work.

    CBO estimates this bill will increase economic activity over the next few years increasing output and driving up consumer demand which will both slow the shedding of jobs create millions of new ones.

    In case you’ve missed it: High unemployment and low consumer demand are two of the biggest problems facing our economy right now in this recession.

  11. Big Dog says:

    None of it will spurn large scale employment. None of it is stimulating.

    How does adding a computer center for government employ many people? How does a rail system at 4 times the cost employ many people? And what happens when the buildings are upgraded and the work is over? The people are again unemployed.

    The private sector is the ONLY one that can create jobs and income. Government creates jobs and spends taxpayer money for them.

    In case you did not notice, the unemployment rate is not anywhere close to what it was under Carter and we made it out of that without spending a trillion dollars (even when adjusted for inflation).

    Like I said, we have been through this before and it has not worked. History tells us this but now you all have the chance to prove it wrong. This belongs entirely to Obama and he can get the credit or be the goat.

    We can argue about these items and whether they should be considered but they should not be in a stimulus package. This is a mish mash of stuff they wanted and now are getting.

    Inflation will hit 12-15% with unemployment around 12% after this.

    So let us quit arguing about something we cannot change and wait and see how it pans out.

    If he has not urgently fixed things in 90 days he is a failure.

    After his minions caused the run on the market that led to this in order to get him elected, it is the Dems who are a danger.

    If we find out who did it we should kill them.

  12. Adam says:

    We’re talking about several years worth of money and projects. It’s not intended to employ people forever. The hope is by the time the money runs out the recession will be long over and the recovery period almost over and the market will be starting to function as normal again. Regular monetary policy will apply more at that point…

    The problem with our unemployment is not that it is as bad as the 1980’s but that it is as bad already and the recession isn’t even over. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. By the time the recession ends unemployment could be much, much worse.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Did I ever state that Obama said he would fix the economy in 90 days?

    Or, did I say that I gave him 90 days.

    I know you never said I did, I just want your opinion on it.

    Dr. Joan, the racist name calling stuff gets your comments removed. I am tired of the blather from morons who call people racists because they do not like or agree with Obama. I don’t care what color he or anyone else is. He is a Socialist, extremely liberal, and I do not like him.

    Quit crying about not giving him a chance. Bush did not get the chance long before he ever swore in.

    And this crisis manifested AFTER Congress was taken over by Democrats. There is evidence that a run on the system started and could have caused complete collapse. If they find out Obama or his wealthy minions had anything to do with it they should all be hanged. And when it started, that was back when Carter gave us CRA.


    Stay at your own blog. I know you are upset that Gribbit does not allow comments but I won’t close my comments I will just kick you out.

    Stay relevant and respectful or stay out…

  14. Pete says:

    The best analogy I can think of for something like the US economy is an oil tanker .

    You see an iceberg, and there is a lot of urgency to start turning. Now that does not mean that the ship turn on a dime, it’s simply too big. It does not even mean it will miss the iceberg, but the quicker you start to turn, the less severe the damage. But what it certainly does not mean is that you should not start turning at all… that’s just silly

  15. Big Dog says:

    Pete that is really good. Then again, you do not turn so drastically so as to damage the ship.

    Also, an iceberg will cause damage to a ship. Doing nothing or a much smaller amount than passed will not harm America. Intervention will probably prolong the recession.

    A better analogy would be, spending money we don’t have to to fix the economy is like finding a hole in your oil tanker and thinking the way to fix it it so make the hole bigger.

    • Pete says:

      Sure, we can argue on whether or not the action taken is correct, but you have to agree that 90 days is an unreasonable timeframe to expect to see any result.

      • Big Dog says:

        No doubt Pete. 90 days is unreasonable. But no more unreasonable than saying we have to pass nearly a trillion dollars in spending immediately and with little debate. It is no more unreasonable than handing out an 1100 page bill at midnight and expecting everyone to have read it before voting the next day.

        The point is, if it was such an emergency that it could not involve a few days of study then it must be something that needs to be done now. Therefore, it is not unreasonable, in the larger scope.

        How urgent is it if it had to be done Friday so he can sign it Tuesday. No one could read it in such a short amount of time.

  16. “I know you are upset that Gribbit does not allow comments but I won’t close my comments I will just kick you out.”

    I’m not upset in the least that Gribbit doesn’t allow comments. If he did, I would not leave him any because he’d just delete them anyway. His wholesale closing of comments is the purest admission of his own cowardice imaginable, and by the same token your deleting of mine has nothing to do with “disrespect” and everything to do with the fact that I caused you discomfort by laying bare your profound ignorance in a particular area.

    It is telling that you continue to mention me (however irrelevantly) in your posts, then turn around and erase my comments here. Nothing could highlight your weakness any better. The conspicuous absence of people like you and Gribbit from the comments sections of blogs where people dismantle your arguments is yet another testament to your cowardice and your inability to sanely defend the crap you spew.

    I’m sure you’ll erase this as well, but I also know it will trouble you even if no one else sees it, and that’s good. It’s the vestiges of your conscience trying to tell you that you’re full of sh*t.

    Stay relevant and respectful or stay out…

  17. Big Dog says:

    I won’t erase this. You did not call people racists and spew the baseless stuff you did in the last two. I edited your remark to comply but that is all. I think I mentioned you in one post, maybe two. That was because you wrote a post about me. Up until then I did not know who you were.

    It is not cowardice to not visit your site or anyone else’s. I rarely comment at other sites. I comment sometimes but not a lot and that goes for sites from both sides of the debate.

    Your opinion of dismantling is that you differ in an opinion.

    Dismantle this:

    I don’t like liberals. They are mentally retarded and a plague upon our country. I have little use for them and would prefer they move to their own country where they can live in hedonistic pleasure and leave the rest of us alone.

    You don’t have to come here. But when you do the rules will be followed. In case you never learned in school, you have no free speech rights here. If you fail to meet certain (minimal) standards then you get edited or bumped.

    I do love the way people act all tough when they are behind their keyboards. People write things they would never say face to face.

    At least not more than once…

  18. “Your opinion of dismantling is that you differ in an opinion.”

    No, “dismantling” means taking apart a factually inaccurate argument (e.g., “there’s no science to support evolution”; “DNA similarities between different species mean nothing in terms of evolution because rats and humans share 90% and they don’t look alike”) using facts and reason.

    “Dismantle this:

    I don’t like liberals. They are mentally retarded and a plague upon our country. I have little use for them and would prefer they move to their own country where they can live in hedonistic pleasure and leave the rest of us alone.”

    Now this–parts of it, anyway–is indeed an opinion. It’s silly and contains some of the usual lies and bad inferences, but you’re free to not like an entire class of people based on their ideology. You don’t have to back it up with facts or even credible ancillary opinions (and this blog demonstrates that you don’t even try).

    Your problem is that you think you can extend this into other areas, such as science. Like as not, your “opinion” about whether evolution represents sound science is about as meaningful as your “opinion” about the sum of two plus two.

    So in summary, your comments about liberals being “mentally retarded” make you *look* stupid (you really ought to write intelligibly before labeling your intellectual betters as being mentally deficient), but your comments about evolution *are* stupid.

    As for my comments about your racism, they stem from statements you yourself would call racist because they fit your own definition. It’s not merely a matter of reflexively calling all criticism of black people racist, it’s outlandish crap like “blacks have it easier in this country because of affirmative action.” You can rail against affirmative action all you like, but this is provably false–if it weren’t, blacks would be running the country from top to bottom. Then again, maybe it was more ignorant and simple-minded than racist, but at some point quibbling over qualities almost always found hand in hand becomes pointless.

    What makes you think I wouldn’t say this to you directly? I address your beetle-browed type all the time and I’m still here.

  19. Big Dog says:

    So this information:

    Among the findings are that mice and human beings both carry about 30,000 genes. Differences within these individual genes — the precise sequences of the four-letter DNA code — spell out the obvious differences between the two mammalian species. On a letter-by-letter basis, the genes are 85 percent the same.

    By scientists in Briton is wrong?

    I admit 85% is not 90% but it is closer than 30%. 90% is the number of common genes linked to diseases.

    So how dismantled was that?


    You are correct though, there is science to support evolution. It is just not a proven thing, as yet.

    It is a theory that has yet to be proved.

  20. Well, for one thing, rats are not mice. But that aside, there is a difference between genes that are identical and shared DNA bases. There are four of the latter (A, C, G, T) and it takes tens or sometimes hundreds of such bases to compose a gene, which in turn codes for some protein product.

    So the statement that 25% of human and rat genes is compatible with the statement that they share 85% of their DNA bases. Think of it this way–two different flavors of Campbell’s soup might contain 90% of the same molecules (after all, soup is mostly water, and most DNA actually doesn’t code for anything) but only 25% of the same listed ingredients.

    Anyway, it was your assertion that DNA homology was not in indicator of shared ancestry that I was really taking issue with, not your math. As your own source here indicates, the scientists out these findings entirely in the context of evolution and what such molecular findings tell us about it.

    I don’t want to hijack this any further, but I think you see the point. Evolution is settled science–the only debate lies in the precise mechanisms. The theory, as you put it, is not in dispute. (Scientific theories, by the way, are never considered “proven”; “proof” is the purview of mathematicians and sometimes philosophers.)

  21. Big Dog says:

    Well I erred in writing no scientific evidence to support it and freely admit that this was an error.

    I maintain that the science is not settled and that is just a difference of opinion.

    Point taken regarding the gene sequences. I don’t necessarily agree with shared ancestry based on alike genes. All are mammals so some of the genes would have to be the same.

    Suffice it to say that more science is needed to sort it out completely.

    I look forward to seeing the science of the future to see what they come up with.

    I do not believe that creation and evolution need to live in separate worlds.

  22. philip says:

    I Can Fix This Recession
    700 Billion + of our tax money has been used to bail out this sinking economy. Banks have run out of Money. The Housing Market is frozen. The Stock Market is crashing. Social Security is out of Money. Now let’s look at my 90-day plan.