agreed with yell here.

Cause you need a common enemy to blame?

It would work, even if you do it only one time. The problem however is not the stock market. Production prices increase fast as resources grow expensive. It needed a correction. It would have happened anyway. Before somebody steps in and sais: "but oil prices are lower now" take into account it takes a little time in order to have an effect on the econ. Presumably prices will be higher long before the econ goes up again.

and as a sidenote, I hope belgians one time speak English as a native tongue. Guess what, I'm Belgian.

unfortunately he "saved" those greedy people responsible for GM's downfall. Lets all be happy. Otherwise we risked GM being taken over by capable people, now who want that?

Personally I like to blame the supermarket that stopped selling the cookies I liked. From there all problems started.

"In answer to flint's original question: Democrats can claim this is 'bush's economy" for the same number of years republicians blamed Clinton for issues in the Bush years (which btw was right up till when Obama came to power)"
idd, but his point still stands...

Hey fool, welcome back.

I agree with Justinian on both issues.

Its almost impossible to find any thread without render going paranoid over something. Maybe he's hired by someone

"and on the relationship with the rest of the world (i can only speak for western europe really), it has been improved."
Couldn't possibly get worse, but its not like he's the new Messiah. Public opinion in EU likes him more then bush, but popular is big word. And the big leaders like him less. His approach to the Arabic world has failed, same counts for Jews.

His lack of strong reaction to North African uprisings is astonishing. He lost all credit as a defender of democracy world wide.

Using US's popularity worldwide as one of his primal achievements points out what his other failures looks like. Einstein is right.

Problem is, the rich loby against obama won't pay more taxes if he got rid of the cuts, but other rich people will. Its a power game, no clash of idees/ideals. You really think his power investors will ever pay more taxes?

"tax cuts for the rich" is a populist phrase for something that is more complicated as that.

Another note, even 2% of china's import would be significant, let go 1/5. I can't understand why you consider that unimportant. Nobody can replace that 20% any time soon and its about to increase.

But for the reasons I stated in this discussion, I don't think it will happen.

To have a good debate, give your definition of "largest econ" Avo cause maybe you're right in your own perspective and also cause debating will lead us nowhere if we speak about different things.