Democrat Economics Work Great if You're: 1) In Congress; or 2) Aren't Human

[Master PO]

its funny you say that Ernst. You just said “I chose not to believe it”. That seems to be the typical conservative argument for everything. anyhoo, Bush had already been on vacation for 96 days before 9-11. so spending a 127 days a year on vacation isn’t really that unbelievable.

“Bush spent 487 days at Camp David during his presidency and 490 days at his Crawford, Texas ranch, a total of 977 days.

When you add the days President Bush spent at Kennebunkport, Maine, he spent a total of 1,020 days away from the White House — close to 3 years. At 1,020 days, Bush was close to being on vacation more days than President John F. Kennedy’s total days in office (1,036). “

Obama's Vacations? Of Any President, Bush Racked Up the Most | Politic365

And what made it an even bigger issue was bush ignored all the warnings of 9-11 to stay on vacation. I guess you could make the argument he would have ignored it whether he was on vacation or not.

sorry again this does not add up

Bush was elected in 2000 and sworn in in late Jan of 2001, between that date and Sept 11th thats roughly 230 days, and you saying bush was on vacation 96 of those days of 230 days...?

White House to move to Texas for a while

By Laurence McQuillan, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Six months after taking office, President Bush will begin a month-long vacation Saturday [*EARLY AUG 2001] that is significantly longer than the average American's annual getaway. If Bush returns as scheduled on Labor Day, he'll tie the modern record for presidential absence from the White House, held by Richard Nixon at 30 days. Ronald Reagan took trips as long as 28 days.

USATODAY.com - White House to move to Texas for a while

*ADDED BY ME


Sonya Ross, "Bush invites Blair to Camp David," AP, January 27, 2001.
Kelly Wallace, "Bush calls world leaders from Camp David," CNN, February 3, 2001.
"Bush, Blair discuss Iraq sanctions" (at Camp David), AP, February 23, 2001.
"Bush, Blair conclude meetings at Camp David," CNN, February 24, 2001.
Judy Keen, "Family, friends, staff fill Bush's overnight list," USA Today, May 16, 2001: "A list of 152 people who have spent the night at the White House or Camp David since President Bush took office includes nine of 214 elite "Pioneers," who raised at least $100,000 for his campaign. However, four of those Pioneers are Bush's relatives, and four are friends from before he entered politics. The ninth is Labor Secretary Elaine Chao." See Bush's Rangers.
"Bush To Receive Musharraf At Camp David," PNS, June 7, 2001.
"Bush, Japanese prime minister forge relationship at Camp David," CNN, June 30, 2001.
Ron Fournier, "Bush heads to family retreat in Kennebunkport," AP, July 5, 2001: "The president is the second Bush to turn the stone-and-shingle oceanfront home into a summer White House. His father golfed, raced his speedboat and jogged during Kennebunkport stays. ... The last time Bush came to Kennebunkport was in June 2000, when he and his siblings converged for a birthday party for their mother."
Lawrence L. Knutson, "Bush returns to Maine family home for brief vacation," AP, July 6, 2001.
Ron Fournier, "Bush arrives in Maine for birthday weekend with family," AP, July 6, 2001.
Laurence McQuillan, "White House to move to Texas for a while," USA Today, August 3, 2001.
Scott Lindlaw, "Bush flees White House - again - for a month in Texas. But his staff calls this trip a working vacation," AP, August 4, 2001: "President Bush seems to bolt from the White House every chance he gets. He begins a month-long vacation on his Texas ranch today, and by the time he returns he will have spent nearly two months of his presidency there. ... And that doesn't include the many weekends he's spent at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains. ... He has spent 14 weekends at Camp David, bringing paperwork and an aide or two along. ... Bush also logged a long weekend last month at the family's Kennebunkport, Maine, compound, throwing horseshoes, playing golf, fishing."
Tom Carver, "Bush's holiday mission," BBC/UK, August 6, 2001: "Inside the White House press room there was an end of term mood last weekend. ... Washington is turning out the lights for August and Mr Bush is leading the way. For the next month the world's superpower will be run from a farm seven miles down Prairie Chapel Road in Texas. ... Rest assured, the president will be receiving his daily intelligence briefings from the CIA but not much else."
Editorial: "W's vacation chronicles II," madison.com, August 7, 2001.
Mimi Hall, "Many Frown on Bush's 30-day Leave," USA Today, August 7, 2001.
Mike Allen, "A White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch For 'Working Vacation'. President Bush confers with aides Monday at his ranch near Crawford, Tex.," Washington Post, August 7, 2001.
"Bush vacation puts spotlight on tiny Crawford," CNN, August 7, 2001.
Jim Puzzanghera, "Bush's break is longest in a generation," San Jose Mercury News, August 8, 2001.
"The vacation president. Bush can take as much holiday as he wants," Guardian/UK, August 9, 2001.
"Bush's 'Excessive' Vacation,", Cyberalerts, August 9, 2001. Links to here.
"Could a vacation reform bill be next on Bush's agenda?," Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, August 11, 2001.
John Balz, "Bush's earned vacation: 6 1/2 days," Washington Journal, August 12, 2001: "Barely six months into his first term and George W. Bush is taking the longest presidential vacation in history: a month. If Bush was like any other first-year federal employee, his work schedule wouldn't be quite so accommodating."
Gene Collier, "President's extended stay at his Texas home isn't vacation as usual," Pittsburg Post-Gazette, August 12, 2001.
Barton Wong, "Bush In Crawford: And Other Reflections on Texas,", Houston Review, August 12, 2001.
"Vacation Time. The big news last week was not that President Bush has finally made his stem cell decision (what was it again?), but that he announced it during the middle of his 31-day vacation," Newsweek, August 13, 2001.
Reg Henry, "Don't beat around the bush for R&R," Pittsburg Post-Gazette, August 14, 2001.
Francine Kiefer, "No grocery, $5 haircuts - and the Bush ranch," Christian Science Monitor, August 14, 2001.
Jay Carney, "A Vacationing Bush Works Hard for His Photo-Ops. No one expects a President to ignore a good photo opportunity. But do Bush's recent choices make him look caring -- or cynical?," Time Online, August 16, 2001.
Major Garrett, "Resignation of Bush's faith-based program director," CNN, August 17, 2001: "Major Garrett is a CNN White House Correspondent. He joined the chat room from Crawford, Texas where he is reporting on the president's activities during Mr. Bush's vacation."
Will Durst, "Bush Goes From a Nap to a Coma," AlterNet, August 21, 2001.
"President Bush makes most of golf vacation," golfweb.com, August 23, 2001.
"Bush's vacation limps toward a conclusion," StAugustine.com, August 23, 2001: "The president and Mrs. Bush originally planned to stay at their ranch through Labor Day but announced last week they would leave Aug. 31 and spend the Labor Day weekend in Washington. Bush didn't elaborate on why the first lady wanted to head back to the White House even earlier."
Chris Sutton, "Is Crawford Heat Making Reporters Pout?," Accuracy in Media, August 24, 2001.
Derrick Z. Jackson, "While Bush Talks to Cows, Workers Get Milked," Boston Globe, August 29, 2001: "The Washington Post recently calculated that Bush has spent 42 percent of his first eight months as president at vacation spots. By the end of this week, only eight months into his presidency, he will have logged about 50 days alone at his range in Crawford, Texas."
"Quibbles and Bits. President Bush's vacation," polkonline, August 25, 2001.
"When presidents take a breather," The Week, September 1, 2001: "President Bush says he will gain valuable perspective from his 31-day 'Home to the Heartland' vacation at his Texas ranch. How have other presidents escaped the heat of Washington politics?"
"Camp David Serene, Bush Hard at Work" (cache file), AP, September 15, 2001.

 

[Vern]

sorry again this does not add up

Bush was elected in 2000 and sworn in in late Jan of 2001, between that date and Sept 11th thats roughly 230 days, and you saying bush was on vacation 96 of those days of 230 days...?

White House to move to Texas for a while

Ernst, I think you are misunderstanding what your link says. Its not about totals, which you are disputing. The article is that Bush is breaking the record for “longest” vacation.

And you still seem to be disputing the 1020 days. Before I posted the link, “sorry does not add up” is a perfectly appropriate response. But now that I’ve posted a link to substantiate the 1020 days, you simply don’t get to repeat “ sorry, does not add up”. Bush took 1020 days of vacation. That’s why vacations were an issue with Bush. And ignoring the clear and specific warnings about 9-11 to stay in Crawford only made it worse.

The link below is about his august 2005 trip to Crawford. WP is being nice by only giving specifics on Crawford. so 4.5 years into his presidency, he’s spent 20 % of his time in crawford

“The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and Tuesday was the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further. “

Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record

 

[code1211]

oh code, how do you overlook the revenue destruction from the Great Bush Recession? I knows it easy for you but how do you do it. Of course the 'conservative entertainment complex' never mentioned it when you were instructed to scream about the deficits. Lets look at that

Year__ Revenue__%
2000___2025___20.6%
2001___1991___19.5 (bush mailed out 40 billion in tax cuts)
2002___1853___17.6
2003___1782___16.2
2004___1880___16.1
2005___2153___17.3
2006___2407___18.2
2007___2568___18.5
2008___2504___17.5
2009___2105___15.1
2010___2162___15.1
2011___2302___15.4
2012___2449___15.8

Wow, an unprecedented 3 year drop on a nominal basis and an unprecedented 4 year drop as a % of GDP at the start. And notice that slight drop in 2008 and that massive drop in 2009. Yea, dang facts. And code, bush is responsible for his drop in revenues early in his admin, they were his tax cuts. And he's responsible for the massive drop late in his admin, it was his mortgage bubble and recession. And for some reason on 1/20/2009 you were instructed to scream about the deficit. Strange that the people instructing you to scream didn't mention the -8.9 % GDP or the 700,000 jobs lost a month. Odd don't you think? At some point you have to ask why your agenda needs you to not know what's going on.

Oh and I guess we are discussing your 'misstatements' about Bush's contribution to the Nat'l debt.

So Obama has had no impact on the economy and the only factors affecting our society is the presidency that ended 5 years ago?

Is your man ever going to do anything to help? The way to increase tax revenues is to increase profitable business. The Big 0's approach is to sue anybody who tries to open a business and refuse the help of other countries trying to hire Americans to work. Is there anything this guy can't screw up?

He's working hard to have a longer recession than FDR had. He seems to be trying to start WW3 to help end the bad economy. Would that be an emulation of FDR or another example of Bush's fault?

Your man is in his own administration and has to stand up on his own hind legs and act like a man. Don't you ever get tired of making excuses for the failures?

 

[code1211]

Its remarkable how the rewriters of logica and history forget who took office in January 2007, and how they control the purse springs with the presidents agreement? Yeah that little treet lefties always want to forget about - its like facts - they can't stomoch the real one's so they make up their own.

They know for a fact that the Democrats are the most brilliant and most honest and most creative folks on the planet.

When they are running things and it all goes in the dumper, they have to blame someone because what they know prevents them from seeing what is real.

 

[Vern]

So Obama has had no impact on the economy and the only factors affecting our society is the presidency that ended 5 years ago?

Is your man ever going to do anything to help? The way to increase tax revenues is to increase profitable business. The Big 0's approach is to sue anybody who tries to open a business and refuse the help of other countries trying to hire Americans to work. Is there anything this guy can't screw up?

He's working hard to have a longer recession than FDR had. He seems to be trying to start WW3 to help end the bad economy. Would that be an emulation of FDR or another example of Bush's fault?

Your man is in his own administration and has to stand up on his own hind legs and act like a man. Don't you ever get tired of making excuses for the failures?

wow, that's amazing code. You went from silly questions to bland generalities to outright delusion. Why cant you make a clear statement and back it up. Its what I do. The post you quoted is an excellent example. See how I used actual facts. Did you see the Bush's destruction of revenue? You must have you posted silly questions , bland generalities and outright delusion.

how come when you were instructed to scream about the deficits your radio masters never mentioned the destruction of revenue, the 700,000 jobs lost a month and the -8.9% GDP? you and all you little con friends ran around screaming "spending is out of control". Of course you weren't instructed to do so until 1/20/2009.

Lets sum up
Bush cuts taxes
Bush destroys the economy which devastates revenue
Bush hands President Obama 1.4 trillion dollar deficit
then little cons scream about spending and deficits (but not revenue)

 

[Master PO]

Ernst, I think you are misunderstanding what your link says. Its not about totals, which you are disputing. The article is that Bush is breaking the record for “longest” vacation.

And you still seem to be disputing the 1020 days. Before I posted the link, “sorry does not add up” is a perfectly appropriate response. But now that I’ve posted a link to substantiate the 1020 days, you simply don’t get to repeat “ sorry, does not add up”. Bush took 1020 days of vacation. That’s why vacations were an issue with Bush. And ignoring the clear and specific warnings about 9-11 to stay in Crawford only made it worse.

The link below is about his august 2005 trip to Crawford. WP is being nice by only giving specifics on Crawford. so 4.5 years into his presidency, he’s spent 20 % of his time in crawford

“The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and Tuesday was the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further. “

Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record

you realize 1020 is about 3 years of vacation out of an 8 year term, no i dont buy it.

you will also note being at camp David , he was conducting government business,....and dont for one minute believe i care for bush, he was was not a good president.

this is just more propaganda put out, and both sides engage in it.

 

[Fletch]

ah word games, what would cons do without them. And word games based on an imaginary argument no less. anyhoo, the democratic argument isn’t “massive govt spending” ended the Great Bush Recession. It was the stimulus. It added 150 billion in new spending to FY 2009. I hold bush responsible for the Great Bush Recession and drop in revenue. Did you somehow miss the revenue chart I posted? My posts are clear and straightforward, why do cons have to constantly “misparaphrase” what I say? oh yea, they cant argue the facts.

I can argue the facts just fine and didn't twist your words at all. Your argument is nonsensical. You would see that if you just stepped back and examined it for a moment. Here is some facts for you. The recession ended in June of 2009. How much of that wonderful stimulus money had actually entered the economy by then? Answer, very little. Certainly not enough to turn around a $14,000,000,000,000 economy. Second, even if all $150 billion had been spent by June 2009 (which it hadn't) it would still not be enough to turn around a $14,000,000,000,000 economy. Finally, you seem to be focusing only on the $150 billion in wonderful Obama stimulus and ignoring the $1,250,000,000,000 stimulus that took the form of the rest of that years federal deficit.

I get that you "hold Bush responsible for the Great Bush Recession" but that is just a partisan political position not one based in fact. Unless, of course, you can point to what it was, exactly, that Bush did that caused the recession. Since you cant, you might want to drop this arrogant contention of yours that only you are able to argue the facts.

 

[Vern]

you realize 1020 is about 3 years of vacation out of an 8 year term, no i dont buy it.

you will also note being at camp David , he was conducting government business,....and dont for one minute believe i care for bush, he was was not a good president.

this is just more propaganda put out, and both sides engage in it.

Fine, you don't want to count the Camp david days but don't count them. Camp David is the Presidential Retreat so I'll count them. To dispute 3 years because its 3 years is not a reason. He spent a year and a half in Crawford. That's bad all by itself. And its not propaganda. Don't say both sides engage in it so you don't have to believe the facts.

And don't forget, he spent a month in Crawford in August 2001 in spite of the clear and repeated warnings about 9-11. yea, his vacations were definitely an issue.

 

[Vern]

I can argue the facts just fine and didn't twist your words at all.

You not only twisted my words you mixed in your silly conservative narratives. In case you forgot you said

Let's see then. If the democratic argument is that massive government spending ended the recession and the recession ended in June of 2009 and you are going to put all that deficit spending on Bushs tab, then it was Bush and his policies that ended the recession, not Obama.

first off “massive govt spending” is the silly conservative narrative. The democratic argument is that the stimulus ended the recession. See the difference. Word Games Verfied. But lets continue. I’ve said many times you can put the stimulus in Obama’s column if you want. An argument can be made for it. I chose to put it in Bush’s column because he destroyed the economy of the planet with his mortgage bubble so he is responsible for the need for a stimulus. With your silly word games you are calling the stimulus a Bush policy. Word Games ReVerified.

Your argument is nonsensical. You would see that if you just stepped back and examined it for a moment. Here is some facts for you. The recession ended in June of 2009. How much of that wonderful stimulus money had actually entered the economy by then? Answer, very little. .

estimates are 100 billion. But thanks for putting no effort into finding out so you could post your convenient phrases and sentence fragments. On a quick side not, cons pretend the stimulus is small when contesting its effectiveness and pretend it all hit the budget when defending Bush’s 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit in 2009.

Certainly not enough to turn around a $14,000,000,000,000 economy. Second, even if all $150 billion had been spent by June 2009 (which it hadn't) it would still not be enough to turn around a $14,000,000,000,000 economy. Finally, you seem to be focusing only on the $150 billion in wonderful Obama stimulus and ignoring the $1,250,000,000,000 stimulus that took the form of the rest of that years federal deficit. .

ah and now for the “its too big for cons to grasp” argument. I find that funny because another con is using the same argument with bush being on vacation for 3 years. “its 3 years out of 8. its too big to grasp”. Anyhoo, the economists who argue that it did turn the economy around say it was about 100 billion by June and just when it was needed. But if I post economists saying it you’ll just post your convenient phrases and sentence fragments explaining why you don’t have to believe actual economists. so lets use real world examples.
remember Bush’s stimulus? of course not, stimulus is one of the many things cons didn’t discover until after 1/20/2009. Bush mailed out 150 billion in checks in 2008 in April. sure looks like stimulus can add to the GDP.
year___Q__%
2008__ I_ -1.8
2008__II_ 1.3
2008__III_ -3.7
2008__IV_ -8.9

Mmmmm, look at that, GDP shot up and then back down. Oh that’s right, it was a one time shot. Seems that a mere 150 billion did turn around the economy that’s too big for cons to grasp. And don’t discount the psychological effect of the stimulus. We know from the collapse of Lehman that panic can make a recession worse.

But just saying stimulus does leave out other excellent policies from President Obama. The auto bailout saved 2 million jobs and the Cash for clunkers was an incredible stimulus at just the right time. I guess they should get some of the credit also. So from now on I’ll give credit to the Stimulus, the bailout and CfC.


(please notice that I cut and paste exactly what you say and respond directly to it)

 

[Vern]

Finally, you seem to be focusing only on the $150 billion in wonderful Obama stimulus and ignoring the $1,250,000,000,000 stimulus that took the form of the rest of that years federal deficit. .

ah more word games. You want to 'categorize' bush's massive deficit as a stimulus. Your continued use of silly word games belies your lack of knowledge of the budget. I posted the CBO estimate of the FY 2009 budget BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OVER. It was 1.2 trillion that increased to 1.4 trillion because of even more revenue collpase. the discretionary budget is about 1 trillion. So are you one of the silly cons that think President Obama should have cut the budget by 1.2 trillion?

I get that you "hold Bush responsible for the Great Bush Recession" but that is just a partisan political position not one based in fact. Unless, of course, you can point to what it was, exactly, that Bush did that caused the recession. Since you cant, you might want to drop this arrogant contention of yours that only you are able to argue the facts.

Actually its only based on facts. And it begins with exactly what Bush said. He said the mortgage bubble started in late 2004 so it was pretty easy to find the bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble. (my personal favorite is protecting predatory lenders). Now as a con, you are constantly protected from harsh realities so my Bush Mortgage Bubble thread will be a little tough for you. So I don’t recommend reading it all at one time. Try to pace yourself.

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

 

[Master PO]

Fine, you don't want to count the Camp david days but don't count them. Camp David is the Presidential Retreat so I'll count them. To dispute 3 years because its 3 years is not a reason. He spent a year and a half in Crawford. That's bad all by itself. And its not propaganda. Don't say both sides engage in it so you don't have to believe the facts.

And don't forget, he spent a month in Crawford in August 2001 in spite of the clear and repeated warnings about 9-11. yea, his vacations were definitely an issue.

being at camp David and dealing with affairs of state, is not going to camp David, drinking lone star beer, watching the cowboys, and singing home on the range.

to say a president is on vacation, and act as though he was not engaged in government business for 3 years out of 8 is ridiculous to me.

 

[code1211]

wow, that's amazing code. You went from silly questions to bland generalities to outright delusion. Why cant you make a clear statement and back it up. Its what I do. The post you quoted is an excellent example. See how I used actual facts. Did you see the Bush's destruction of revenue? You must have you posted silly questions , bland generalities and outright delusion.

how come when you were instructed to scream about the deficits your radio masters never mentioned the destruction of revenue, the 700,000 jobs lost a month and the -8.9% GDP? you and all you little con friends ran around screaming "spending is out of control". Of course you weren't instructed to do so until 1/20/2009.

Lets sum up
Bush cuts taxes
Bush destroys the economy which devastates revenue
Bush hands President Obama 1.4 trillion dollar deficit
then little cons scream about spending and deficits (but not revenue)

You have a real comprehension problem. I'm not saying that Bush did a good job. I'm saying Bush did a bad job.

I'm also saying the Obama has done and is doing a worse job.

Comparing one to the other is like comparing a dog turd to a cat turd. They are booth turds.

The difference is that you just can't seem ot accept the blatant fact that Obama is a worthless excuse making failure who cannot figure out anything except how to campaign and how to win elections. He talks really well and I hear he has a good irons game. As an executive, he makes a good community organizer.

As far as actually leading, governing or forming a consensus he is worse than ineffective. He is actually producing negative results. The country has never been more divided than it is now. Why do you compare him to the absolute worst economic time in history, that 6 month blip, instead of comparing him to something the worked like either the Clinton or Reagan administrations?

We are not trying to be the least failing failures. We are trying to be the most successful successes. With Obama in charge, we are out in the cold.

 

[Vern]

I'm also saying the Obama has done and is doing a worse job.

you say a lot of things code. the problem is you cant back them up. You can only repeat them. And alot of the time its makes no sense. See how I use actual facts when I say something?

The country has never been more divided than it is now.

mmm, you may be right code. But strangely you're blaming President Obama. How exactly does that brain of yours block out the republicans running around

Screaming that Obama was born in Kenya
Screaming his BC is a fake
Screaming the dollar will collapse
Screaming we'll have hyper inflation
Screaming on and on and on and on

Their agenda is not based on honesty and intelligence. How does your brain ignore that they said from the start their goal was to make him a one termer. And get this code, the republican ignorant base doesn't want their guys to work with President Obama. So yea code, the country is divided and you only need to look in the mirror.

Why do you compare him to the absolute worst economic time in history, that 6 month blip, instead of comparing him to something the worked like either the Clinton or Reagan administrations?

see above about you posting something that makes no sense. what six month blip? what have I compared? be specific. In this thread I've pointed out that Bush destroyed the economy, handed President Obama a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit of which 1.1 trillion was directly attributable to the Great Bush Recession and mostly a result of revenue destruction and then cons ran around screaming spending was out of control.

Bush's 300 million budget deficit became 1.4 trillion because revenue collapsed 700 billion and spending went up 400 billion.

 

[code1211]

you say a lot of things code. the problem is you cant back them up. You can only repeat them. And alot of the time its makes no sense. See how I use actual facts when I say something?


mmm, you may be right code. But strangely you're blaming President Obama. How exactly does that brain of yours block out the republicans running around

Screaming that Obama was born in Kenya
Screaming his BC is a fake
Screaming the dollar will collapse
Screaming we'll have hyper inflation
Screaming on and on and on and on

Their agenda is not based on honesty and intelligence. How does your brain ignore that they said from the start their goal was to make him a one termer. And get this code, the republican ignorant base doesn't want their guys to work with President Obama. So yea code, the country is divided and you only need to look in the mirror.



see above about you posting something that makes no sense. what six month blip? what have I compared? be specific. In this thread I've pointed out that Bush destroyed the economy, handed President Obama a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit of which 1.1 trillion was directly attributable to the Great Bush Recession and mostly a result of revenue destruction and then cons ran around screaming spending was out of control.

Bush's 300 million budget deficit became 1.4 trillion because revenue collapsed 700 billion and spending went up 400 billion.

You are hopeless and your opinions are worthless.


Assigning blame, while it is exactly in step with your hero, is not fixing the problem.

He has done nothing and is wrecking the ability of an entire generation to work itself into a good and rewarding future.

Point fingers of blame in any direction you like.

The ship is sinking with your captain at the helm. It is obama who is failing right now. It matters little who else failed and when.

Why do you keep implying that I'm am supporting Bush? You seem to be spoiling for a fight. If that is the case, then simply explain to all how Obama is the greatest president in history.

I'm saying he is a Chicago machine politician with no interest in the well being of the country and interest only in the health of his party and his own political future. They are both doing great. it's the country that's circling the drain and your hero does not care.

 

[Fletch]

You not only twisted my words you mixed in your silly conservative narratives. In case you forgot you said



first off “massive govt spending” is the silly conservative narrative. The democratic argument is that the stimulus ended the recession. See the difference.

No, I dont see the difference at all.

estimates are 100 billion. But thanks for putting no effort into finding out so you could post your convenient phrases and sentence fragments.

And your source for that number is...?

On a quick side not, cons pretend the stimulus is small when contesting its effectiveness and pretend it all hit the budget when defending Bush’s 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit in 2009.

Who is doing that?

ah and now for the “its too big for cons to grasp” argument. I find that funny because another con is using the same argument with bush being on vacation for 3 years. “its 3 years out of 8. its too big to grasp”. Anyhoo, the economists who argue that it did turn the economy around say it was about 100 billion by June and just when it was needed. But if I post economists saying it you’ll just post your convenient phrases and sentence fragments explaining why you don’t have to believe actual economists. so lets use real world examples.
remember Bush’s stimulus? of course not, stimulus is one of the many things cons didn’t discover until after 1/20/2009. Bush mailed out 150 billion in checks in 2008 in April. sure looks like stimulus can add to the GDP.
year___Q__%
2008__ I_ -1.8
2008__II_ 1.3
2008__III_ -3.7
2008__IV_ -8.9

Mmmmm, look at that, GDP shot up and then back down. Oh that’s right, it was a one time shot. Seems that a mere 150 billion did turn around the economy that’s too big for cons to grasp. And don’t discount the psychological effect of the stimulus. We know from the collapse of Lehman that panic can make a recession worse.

You are too arrogant apparently to even understand when your own point defeats your own argument. The $150 billion didn't turn the economy around, it caused a single quarter blip. Turning it around, for you uneducable libs (see, I can hurl senseless insult too) would mean that the economy, well, turned around and headed in a positive direction. By your own measure, that clearly didn't happen.

As for the rest of this post, and all of the next one, I am just going to ignore them. You are going to have to drop the arrogance, grow up a bit and actually educate yourself rather than spewing out MSNBC talking points if you expect me to respond to you. Since from what little I have seen of you, you don't seem capable of adult conversation, I wont expect much. So ta ta.

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm saying he is a Chicago machine politician with no interest in the well being of the country and interest only in the health of his party and his own political future. They are both doing great. it's the country that's circling the drain and your hero does not care.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Chicago Machine politician!

Saying that shows you have absolutely no knowledge of
A) the Chicago Machine
B) Obama
C) Illinois politics
D) your asshole vs. a hole in the ground.

The machine (or what is left of it) HATED Obama, until they eventually had to suck up to him.

 

[Vern]

You are hopeless and your opinions are worthless.

Assigning blame, while it is exactly in step with your hero, is not fixing the problem.

He has done nothing and is wrecking the ability of an entire generation to work itself into a good and rewarding future.

Point fingers of blame in any direction you like.

blah blah blah……. anyhoo code, see how you cant respond to what I say? You babble off in every direction rather than address what I post. And your post is quite hypocritical. You “point fingers of blame” at President Obama with no basis. I clearly enunciate why you should “point fingers of blame” right back at you and your party so then you whine about pointing fingers. classic

before you run away can you admit that you and republicans are responsible for the ‘divide’ in this country?

As for the rest of this post, and all of the next one, I am just going to ignore them. You are going to have to drop the arrogance, grow up a bit and actually educate yourself rather than spewing out MSNBC talking points if you expect me to respond to you. Since from what little I have seen of you, you don't seem capable of adult conversation, I wont expect much. So ta ta.

sorry fletch, this is the point in the conversation when cons have to start to pretend not to understand things, whine at the facts, mention MSNBC and then run away. I get the “running away” part because you cant handle the facts. But you run away as if you are doing something “noble”. you cons are too funny.

But of course you have to run away. Remember “ wah wah 150 billion cant affect a 14 trillion dollar economy” (sorry I’m not typing out the zeroes. Since I’m posting facts I don’t have to do things for effect). I showed it can. And you should read your own post. You admit that Bush’s stimulus caused a single quarter blip. But that’s because it was a single shot stimulus. (you see where I’m going with this?) President Obama’s stimulus wasn’t a one shot deal. And don’t forget, I’ve proven that Bush is responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble (which probably explains you running away). again, you cons are funny.

And even funnier, you ask for a link concerning the 100 billion but you’re ‘cutting and running’ remember? oh fletch, thanks for the laughs.

 

[code1211]

blah blah blah……. anyhoo code, see how you cant respond to what I say? You babble off in every direction rather than address what I post. And your post is quite hypocritical. You “point fingers of blame” at President Obama with no basis. I clearly enunciate why you should “point fingers of blame” right back at you and your party so then you whine about pointing fingers. classic

before you run away can you admit that you and republicans are responsible for the ‘divide’ in this country?



sorry fletch, this is the point in the conversation when cons have to start to pretend not to understand things, whine at the facts, mention MSNBC and then run away. I get the “running away” part because you cant handle the facts. But you run away as if you are doing something “noble”. you cons are too funny.

But of course you have to run away. Remember “ wah wah 150 billion cant affect a 14 trillion dollar economy” (sorry I’m not typing out the zeroes. Since I’m posting facts I don’t have to do things for effect). I showed it can. And you should read your own post. You admit that Bush’s stimulus caused a single quarter blip. But that’s because it was a single shot stimulus. (you see where I’m going with this?) President Obama’s stimulus wasn’t a one shot deal. And don’t forget, I’ve proven that Bush is responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble (which probably explains you running away). again, you cons are funny.

And even funnier, you ask for a link concerning the 100 billion but you’re ‘cutting and running’ remember? oh fletch, thanks for the laughs.

When will you accept that the guy who is the current leader is responsible for the current results?

Is Obama responsible for anything that has happened during his administration?

If he's not responsible, he's worthless. If he is responsible, he's worse than worthless.

 

[Vern]

When will you accept that the guy who is the current leader is responsible for the current results?

Is Obama responsible for anything that has happened during his administration?

If he's not responsible, he's worthless. If he is responsible, he's worse than worthless.

Oh code, of course I accept that President Obama is responsible for lowering the deficit every year as % of GDP (and almost on a nominal basis) all while maintaining positive GDP. Of course this is all the more remarkable considering that republicans have been fighting every step of the way and purposely trying to cause a double dip recession or worse, a complete collapse of the economy


anyhoo, it just seems you absolutely do not want to have an honest and intelligent discussion. You never respond to anything I post. It seems you just respond to my posts as an excuse to post more of the delusions that haunt you.

Now responsibility seems to be important to you (well at least in your latest post). do you hold Bush and pubs responsible for destroying the economy in the first place? no need to answer.

 

[Linc]

Republickers would prefer that we shed 750,000 jobs a month instead of today being the 42nd straight month of private sector job growth with the Repub House tying both his hands behind his back.

 

[Linc]

HAHAHAHAHA!

Chicago Machine politician!

Saying that shows you have absolutely no knowledge of
A) the Chicago Machine
B) Obama
C) Illinois politics
D) your asshole vs. a hole in the ground.

The machine (or what is left of it) HATED Obama, until they eventually had to suck up to him.

And they also hate Quinn.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Republickers would prefer that we shed 750,000 jobs a month instead of today being the 42nd straight month of private sector job growth with the Repub House tying both his hands behind his back.

And we have to go back at least 35 years to find an economy almost as bad as we have now. Why hasn't your Progressive genius been able to change this trend? He's given us "shovel ready jobs that weren't shovel ready", through his Stimulus 1 & 2. His Obama-care has created more unemployment and taken jobs away from teens by forcing Americans to take part-time jobs. The American economy is no longer based upon a 40 hour week. Why is that? BTW blaming anyone other than Obama and Democrats for this is obviously illogical.

 

[code1211]

Oh code, of course I accept that President Obama is responsible for lowering the deficit every year as % of GDP (and almost on a nominal basis) all while maintaining positive GDP. Of course this is all the more remarkable considering that republicans have been fighting every step of the way and purposely trying to cause a double dip recession or worse, a complete collapse of the economy


anyhoo, it just seems you absolutely do not want to have an honest and intelligent discussion. You never respond to anything I post. It seems you just respond to my posts as an excuse to post more of the delusions that haunt you.

Now responsibility seems to be important to you (well at least in your latest post). do you hold Bush and pubs responsible for destroying the economy in the first place? no need to answer.

You obviously do not want to discuss this as your loyalty and love are for the loser in the White House.

However, if you would like to have a rational discussion of facts, the economy collapsed when the housing bubble burst. That was not the responsibility exclusively of either party. Barney Frank was saying right up to the crash that there was no problem. So was Dodd.

Both had been bought and paid for so your saints are not without blame.

I read somewhere that Bush warned of the danger of a collapse dozens of times, but he didn't make a big issue out of it. To the contrary, he bragged that the % of those owning hoomes was the highest in American history. If you check, you will find that both parties were on all sides of this issue and the collapse of the economy was about the only bi-partisan effort since the first Iraq war.

So, no, there is not a clean cut and post answer to who was to blame for this. In truth, anyone in the society that benefitted in any way from the robust economy based on the bubble, that is, every single American and many foreigners, were also complicit.

You are now free to proceed with your vitriol, hate and stupidity.

 

[Vern]

You obviously do not want to discuss this as your loyalty and love are for the loser in the White House.

However, if you would like to have a rational discussion of facts, the economy collapsed when the housing bubble burst. That was not the responsibility exclusively of either party. Barney Frank was saying right up to the crash that there was no problem. So was Dodd.

Both had been bought and paid for so your saints are not without blame.

I read somewhere that Bush warned of the danger of a collapse dozens of times, but he didn't make a big issue out of it. To the contrary, he bragged that the % of those owning hoomes was the highest in American history. If you check, you will find that both parties were on all sides of this issue and the collapse of the economy was about the only bi-partisan effort since the first Iraq war.

So, no, there is not a clean cut and post answer to who was to blame for this. In truth, anyone in the society that benefitted in any way from the robust economy based on the bubble, that is, every single American and many foreigners, were also complicit.

You are now free to proceed with your vitriol, hate and stupidity.

that's funny, I'm the one posting facts. You are not only posting vitriol, hate and stupidity but you're posting it as fact. The difference is I can back up what I post. You can only repeat what you post. that's why you refuse to address anything I post and go off on these delusional diatribes.

And read this slowly, Bush never warned of a collapse once, let alone dozens of times. you'll of course just repeat it.

 

[Moot]

So, to be clear, there was absolutely no cost during the obama administration for either the Iraq or the Afghanistan wars?

No cost during the Obama administration for the 2nd HALF of the TARP funds that Obama spent all by himself or the 1st Half that he spent again after the banks repaid it?

No cost for the tax cuts that expired in the first year of the Obama administration that Obama signed into law?

No cost for the Medicare Drug Benefit that obama allows to continue?

Under Bush, in 8 years, the debt increased by about 5 trillion and under Obama for 4 years, the debt increased by about 6 trillion.

Bush spent money like a sailor on a three day leave and Obama spends money like a pimp with three days to live. I wouldn't trust either one with the rent money.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012

If you're looking at the chart...it's the cost of each president's "policy" changes. The Iraq and Afgan war were Bush policies. Stimulus spending was an Obama policy. Etc.

Obama really hasn't had that many new policies. Instead he just seems to be continuing many of Bush's old policies that were in place when he took office. So much for "change".