I don’t think Obama considers himself either a Marxist or a thug.

And if he’s implementing policies designed to benefit his supporters without regard to whether or not they benefit the country, then he’s evil.

Like every other President before him, Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country.

What sets me off is your arbitrary questioning of the man’s motives merely because he happens to see the world differently than you do.

I had similar disdain for liberals who accused Bush of declaring war on Iraq just to enrich his already rich oil pals.

This questioning of motives is bad for the country and has to stop.

I think every President America has ever had has tried to do what he thought was best for the country.

For what it is worth, I do not think “the President secretly wants America to stay in a recession.” Nevertheless, there is no doubt that his response to the economic situation was primarily designed to reward his political supporters, not to improve the American economy. For example, the government takeover of American automobile companies (the takeover being a particularly good example of both Marxism and thuggery) was primarily designed to assist auto unions, not to improve the American economy. As a general rule, rewarding failure is not a good economic policy.

You ask:

“How do you know the polices were designed to pull us out of the recession?”

Please tell me you are not suggesting that the President secretly wants America to stay in a recession.

If you are, you’re every bit as unhinged as the “truthers” who suggest that 911 was a Bush inside job, the “birthers” who suggest Obama was born in Kenya, and the “bergers” who think the iceberg didn’t act alone in the sinking of the Titanic.

If Bernanke says the recession is over, I believe him. He’s a lot smarter than me.

Or is he part of the Obama “let’s-destroy-America” conspiracy?

Finally, it is just as reasonable to assume that Obama’s economic polices are responsible for the recovery as it was to assume that Bush’s foreign policies were responsible for keeping us safe since 9/11.

Really? How do you “know” the policies were “designed to pull us out of the recession”?

Also, when you give kudos to the President, you assume a connection between the policies and the end of the recession. Why would you assume such a thing? What policies do you think contributed to the end of the recession, and what was the connection between those policies and the end of the recession?

Also, I suspect you are a bit premature in your assumption that others are correct in saying that the recession is over.

For what it is worth, it appears to me that the President’s Marxist tendencies, his thuggery (as with his treatment of investors and non-union stakeholders in his takeovers of automobile companies), and his absurd borrowing and spending have scared the crap out of many investors, entrepreneurs, and consumers in a way that is prolonging the recession and will retard future growth even if the recession is “over.”

Recessions do “end” on their own, but sometimes they do so by becoming depressions.

It’s my understanding that increases in employment usually come later in a recovery.

I don’t like the deficits, either.