Reply With Quote
bush's leftovers were still tanking.
he would have been hanged if he was still there.
I guess he shouldn't have made that three-year promise to turn it around, eh?
Hopefully, most voters will take him at his word.
bush's leftovers were still tanking.
he would have been hanged if he was still there.
Disagree.
Did the country recover out of the Great Depression (with those policies), yes or no?
Cool narrative. A well do ented lie, however. The country flourished under a heavier tax burden (ie: Clinton days), and tanked after pervasive debt-ridden tax cuts (ie: Dubya days). This is not up for discussion, simply facts.
lol the economy was bad, but it didn't turn into absolute dog until after the TARP, where it took a major nose dive. You can see this in any GDP chart quite clearly:TARP was the stupidest thing President Bush did.
What's wrong with that?
He simply underestimated the turd passed by dubya's economic inep ude.
Which makes absolute sense when one received an expanding economy and the other received a contracting economy.
That's how presidential campaigns are won... see:
"As President, Governor Bush will pay the debt down to a historically low level."
"There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families."
http://web.archive.org/web/200011090...ues/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200011300...s/defense.html
Funny how things change, tbh.....Insist that deployments have well-defined objectives. Our military requires the rallying point of a defining mission: to be able to fight and win our nation’s wars – and thereby deter war. Sending our military on vague, aimless and endless deployments is a sure way to destroy morale. Nothing would be better for morale than clarity and focus from the Commander-in-Chief.
1. To Renew the Bond of Trust Between the President and the Military, Governor Bush will:
Maintain longstanding U.S. commitments, but order an immediate review of overseas deployments in dozens of countries, with the aim of replacing uncertain missions with well-defined objectives.
We'll see in November.
Every Obama promise has an expiration date.
Oh, and the Republican Candidate is Mitt Romney not George W. Bush.
I have no doubt he's lying just as much as any of the others candidates that preceded him.
He's lying. At this point, predecessors aren't in the picture.
But they are. Presidential elections don't exist in a vacuum, especially on a two party system which hasn't really changed the way it gets presidents elected.
Ah, and Bush was stuck with a Democratic Congress, right?
He's only throwing mud at Romney -- not a predecessor -- and none of it is sticking.
Yes, he's blaming Bush for his own failure but, even that is wearing thin with voters.
He's yet to talk about his own accomplishments in office except, of course, for that "agonizing 40 minutes" after he ordered the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. He's not even honest about that.
The Democrats controlled the Senate for 1/2 of the time, Republicans controlled it for 1/2 the time.
The Democrats controlled the House for 1/4 of the time.
Coincidentally, or not, it was when the Democrats controlled the entire Congress that the economy went south. It was also during that time Bush made his most idiotic economic decision - TARP.
I thought we were talking about Romney... but you're back to your monologues... carry on
Sorry, I thought you knew the definitions of the words you use.
I do. I was talking about Romney. Since I was replying to:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...omment-page-1/
http://articles.businessinsider.com/...on-mitt-romney
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
You can talk all day long about job gains, but to me employment numbers are far more important (p.s. I know job gains and employment are the same thing, I'm talking about high level perspective).
2002 - 2012 graph from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Also take note of the complete collapse at the end of Bush Administration, nearly 50% of the job losses happened PRIOR to 2009 (contrary to your opinion that stated nearly all the job losses happened under Obama's 1st 12 months)....which leads to my original point that Obama's "breaking even" is hardly where we were prior to the collapse.
Last edited by wut; 08-04-2012 at 05:08 PM.
It's only August...Obama has so much more ing up to do.
Great audio.
solyndra
YOU ING LIE
Dems didn't have 60 in the Senate in 2009/2010. BlueDogs and Lieberman voted/vote with the Repugs on all the big issues.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-05-2012 at 11:40 AM.
But they were there to break filibusters.
No president has added jobs. It's done mostly by the private sector. Presidents that just happen to be in office at the time (dot com bubble, housing loan collapse, terrorist attacks, wars) get credit or blame, but it's been more about things like unions driving automakers out of the country with re ed wages for unskilled labor, and the "my son is taking over the company" moves where businesses that focused on the US were suddenly moving away from this country as CEOs were getting a ton of bonus money to drive short term profits which drove stock prices artificially because the market is a ing quivering bundle of nerves, or they just falsified their earnings statements to sell stock and bail. There are very few "long haul" companies around any more that focus on the long game and don't sell the farm for a quarterly profit announcement.
From top to bottom, it's been about unprecedented greed, a sense of en lement that everyone deserves a high standard of living.
Wow are you serious? This is big. Someone record this. (that's what she said)
Are you suggesting the President can't implement policies that either inhibit or encourage job creation?
Gulf drilling moratorium?
Why are so many coal-fired generating plants shutting down?
This list is long, probably approaching 100%, for commercial enterprises that have been both positively and negatively affected by government regulatory policies.
Last edited by Yonivore; 08-05-2012 at 06:23 AM.
So, let's hear some Romney lies.
60 to break, they didn't have it
and Repugs threatened, since 2009, to filibuster/obstruct anything, no matter how positive it would have been for Human-Americans, because they wanted to deny any success to the "illegitimate" Dems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
