Republiclowns on Fox pretending to have a mandate

[Conservative]

Conservative, 4 years ago, when Obama won 332 EC votes:



Heh.

And Obama got everything he wanted his first term, lost the House in 2010, Didn't regain it in 2012 and lost the Congress in 2014. Keep ignoring where the Obama vote came from and where the Hillary vote came from this election BIG CITIES which are easily manipulated and controlled by the party bosses, hardly the pulse of the American electorate

 

[Conservative]

Big cities represent the will of "some" American people.

This election was not a repudiation of the entitlement crowd (what ever that even means) .. It was a repudiation of the establishment.

No they don't, they represent the will of the big city bosses and entitlement whores. We have a 20 trillion dollar debt, and President that never generated a 2% GDP growth, has terrible foreign policy results and the electorate voted for change, change is what we got from a flawed GOP candidate who is an outsider

 

[Paperview]

You ole goalpost mover you.

lol

 

[Conservative]

Red are massive socialists... they love socialism (at least the leaders do). Folks need to stop using this term because it has become a meaningless platitude. They need to talk specific policies within socialism.

Bernie and Trump were on the same page with respect to reigning in the Oligopolies. (as was Cruz)

Obviously you paid zero attention to Sander's results and his campaign promises all expanding the role of the Federal Govt. and entitlement programs. How much debt is enough for you since it isn't 20 trillion on an 18 trillion economy

 

[Conservative]

You ole goalpost mover you.

lol

You always talk about the radical right but never the radical left, why is that?

 

[Casca XV]

I thought nothing could be more vomit inducing than listening to Hillary.

Watching these Republican Jokers claiming the will of people was the GOP platform is just as bad.

The people did not vote for the GOP platform. They voted for "anything other than the establishment".

Its got to scare the crap out of the Democrats to realize that after 8 years of Obama visibly demonstrating how Progressive Liberal policies never work Trump is coming in with policies that will cause the economy to sky rocket (they worked for JFK and Reagan).

 

[thinkagain]

No they don't, they represent the will of the big city bosses and entitlement whores. We have a 20 trillion dollar debt, and President that never generated a 2% GDP growth, has terrible foreign policy results and the electorate voted for change, change is what we got from a flawed GOP candidate who is an outsider

You are being way to vague and general. Big cities represent a wide variety of people, ideologies and platforms. Further - medium sized cities are not so different from big one's these days. Most people in this country live in cities.

You seem all over the map here and I can not figure out what your angle is ? 20 Trillion in debt (thanks to the GOP as much as (if not more) than the Dems but both at the end of the day should be thrown out over the debt)

If the "will of the people" is the party that created the debt then they sure as heck should not be voting Red or Blue.

 

[thinkagain]

Obviously you paid zero attention to Sander's results and his campaign promises all expanding the role of the Federal Govt. and entitlement programs. How much debt is enough for you since it isn't 20 trillion on an 18 trillion economy

Obviously it is you that has paid zero attention.

Red loves Socialism
Red loves Big Gov't
Red loves Big deficits and spending money like princesses with credit cars
Red hates limited Gov't power
Red loves trampling on individual rights and freedoms/liberty and hates the constitution
Red hates fair and free markets and loves the anti competitive practices and price fixing of Oligopolies.

So does Blue.

 

[thinkagain]

Its got to scare the crap out of the Democrats to realize that after 8 years of Obama visibly demonstrating how Progressive Liberal policies never work Trump is coming in with policies that will cause the economy to sky rocket (they worked for JFK and Reagan).

It was Reagan's policies that contributed in large part to where we are today.

I am not sure which policies of Trump that you think will cause the economy to sky rocket ? I do not say this is not possible but one does not just turn a switch and magically the wealth distribution equation get's reversed.

The majority of the economy is consumer spending (via the middle class) and the middle class has been taking it on the chin for decades as wealth us siphoned out of the system and the country by the Oligopolies. This is not just a USA phenomenon but a global phenomenon which is problematic.

In Trump's defense, he has said some good things with respect to the wealth equation so I agree with you that there is some hope.

 

[eohrnberger]

I would tend to agree. But I wouldn't count on a lot of goals being achieved.

As you will recall, Obama too, laid out his "bill of goods" that he ran on, and the majority of the populous voted him in, both popular and electoral, as that is what the majority of the people wanted. The republican response, as you may also recall, was to block and obstruct Obama in achieving the wants and the will of the people who elected him. Basically telling the majority of the voters to take a hike. They were not shy about it either, I seem to recall. They clearly stated that their number one agenda was to shut Obama down.

I would expect no less from the democrats now that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot.

Indeed. Yes, the shoe is on the other foot, it's nearly exactly the situation that Obama had from '08 to '00.

Ironically, Trump has all the cards stacked in his favor much like Obama did when Obama first took office. The question will be, will Trump take full advantage of that and get it while the getting is good, or, will he try to "extend the olive branch," like Obama did? I thought Obama was idiot for doing that. He should have went full steam when he had the chance.

This seems to promote a mob rule by party mentality, which I don't favor.

The reality of the matter is that legislation that has bi-partisan support will gain the same in the electorate and improve it's results with that support, both in elected and electorate. Without that bi-partisan support, with a mob rule by party mentality, the nation descends into an oscillation where the party in power does a bunch of stuff which 8 years later is undone by the next party in power. So no real progress ever made, but a mad undoing the previous and doing with one sided support.

There is no statesmanship in this. There is only party before country in this, and I wager that the electorate is fed up with exactly this.

Let's hope that this isn't what the nation and it's politics descends into.

Time will tell. I am hoping for the best and I'm feeling pretty good about our future. Give Trump a chance.

Indeed. Give Trump a chance.

 

[eohrnberger]

Big cities represent the will of "some" American people.

This election was not a repudiation of the entitlement crowd (what ever that even means) .. It was a repudiation of the establishment.

It'd also be a repudiation of the liberal / progressive leftist agenda. Pretty much the agenda that that DC was rife with, one that GOP establishment loathed to actually combat. This liberal / progressive leftist agenda is probably the worst thing fro the nation, and I'm glad that it's been repudiated.

Also hardly a surprise that the support for this is in such few counties in the nation, and that those are on the liberal East and West coasts, where as the repudiation came from the 'fly over country' in the middle, for which the liberal / progressive leftists and political elites have had a long standing disregard, denigration, revile for.

You may refuse to acknowledge it, but the political landscape has just gone through a plate tectonic level shift, and this has changed everything.

 

[Wiggen]

I thought nothing could be more vomit inducing than listening to Hillary.

Watching these Republican Jokers claiming the will of people was the GOP platform is just as bad.

The people did not vote for the GOP platform. They voted for "anything other than the establishment".

And not even a majority of them did that. He's going to wind up with a smaller percentage of the vote than Mitt Romney and will probably lose the popular vote by 1.5-2 million. Not sure how you claim a mandate with that, but the Far Right will do so. Facts never seen to mean much to them.

 

[countryboy]

I told you why there is no bright line number, IMO. I can't help if you don't understand it. You seem to imply that an electoral vote of 538-0 would be a mandate even if the popular vote were won by 50 votes, which I find pretty intellectually lazy. A mandate, to me, means a clear signal of support for one's policies. If the popular vote is very close or, as here, actually contradicts the electoral margin, I think the electoral difference does not, in fact, send a clear message of support for a candidate's policies. I'm sorry if that is convoluted, but it is, unlike your reasoning, rational.

If there's no "bright line number", then the term "mandate level" is utterly meaningless drivel.

 

[thinkagain]

And not even a majority of them did that. He's going to wind up with a smaller percentage of the vote than Mitt Romney and will probably lose the popular vote by 1.5-2 million. Not sure how you claim a mandate with that, but the Far Right will do so. Facts never seen to mean much to them.

Even if Trump had gotten a higher percentage of the Popular vote it is still not a mandate for the GOP platform. Many of the Trump supporters were voting to throw a wrench into the establishment (Red and Blue).

It was a protest vote.

 

[thinkagain]

It'd also be a repudiation of the liberal / progressive leftist agenda. Pretty much the agenda that that DC was rife with, one that GOP establishment loathed to actually combat. This liberal / progressive leftist agenda is probably the worst thing fro the nation, and I'm glad that it's been repudiated.

Also hardly a surprise that the support for this is in such few counties in the nation, and that those are on the liberal East and West coasts, where as the repudiation came from the 'fly over country' in the middle, for which the liberal / progressive leftists and political elites have had a long standing disregard, denigration, revile for.

You may refuse to acknowledge it, but the political landscape has just gone through a plate tectonic level shift, and this has changed everything.

I agree with you in part but not in general. People are tired of political correctness but what they are really tired of is being broke. This election was won/lost by the anti establishment crowd.

The GOP has a losing platform and they were lucky that the Dems ran such a horrific candidate.

 

[Conservative]

You are being way to vague and general. Big cities represent a wide variety of people, ideologies and platforms. Further - medium sized cities are not so different from big one's these days. Most people in this country live in cities.

You seem all over the map here and I can not figure out what your angle is ? 20 Trillion in debt (thanks to the GOP as much as (if not more) than the Dems but both at the end of the day should be thrown out over the debt)

If the "will of the people" is the party that created the debt then they sure as heck should not be voting Red or Blue.

Big cities represent corruption, election fraud, welfare recipients which means more money for the political bosses to spend. They represent high poverty, high crime, and the status quo, they do not represent the ideals of the American people including the fly over area in this country

I really get tired of people like you who are civics challenged and have no idea what the budget of the United States entails. You blame the debt on Republicans when over 60% of the budget is entitlement and social engineering very little of which was Republican. There is no question that Republicans contributed but the bulk of the debt was generated by Democrat Presidents as the following shows

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 trillion
GW Bush, 4.9 trillion

Total 8.0 trillion dollars

Clinton 1.4 trillion
Obama 9.6 trillion

Total 11.0 trillion dollars so stop buying what the left tells you

 

[Conservative]

It was Reagan's policies that contributed in large part to where we are today.

I am not sure which policies of Trump that you think will cause the economy to sky rocket ? I do not say this is not possible but one does not just turn a switch and magically the wealth distribution equation get's reversed.

The majority of the economy is consumer spending (via the middle class) and the middle class has been taking it on the chin for decades as wealth us siphoned out of the system and the country by the Oligopolies. This is not just a USA phenomenon but a global phenomenon which is problematic.

In Trump's defense, he has said some good things with respect to the wealth equation so I agree with you that there is some hope.

I am sure that is what the left tells you but I offered you a problem that would double GDP, create 17 million jobs, grow FIT revenue over 60%, and create a peace dividend at a cost of 1.7 trillion dollars, would you do it realizing that the total debt when Reagan left office was 2.6 trillion on a 5.2 trillion dollar economy? What is the debt to GDP ration today?

You are right, the majority of the economy, 2/3, is indeed consumer spending which is why tax cuts are so beneficial as it puts more money into the hands of the consumer regardless of what they do with it. The ones adamant against tax cuts are the left because they realize that people with more of their own money don't need liberals

 

[Conservative]

And not even a majority of them did that. He's going to wind up with a smaller percentage of the vote than Mitt Romney and will probably lose the popular vote by 1.5-2 million. Not sure how you claim a mandate with that, but the Far Right will do so. Facts never seen to mean much to them.

Why are you ignoring where Hillary got the popular vote and the affect of LA, Chicago, and NYC had on that popular vote for Hillary?

 

[eohrnberger]

I agree with you in part but not in general. People are tired of political correctness but what they are really tired of is being broke. This election was won/lost by the anti establishment crowd.

The GOP has a losing platform and they were lucky that the Dems ran such a horrific candidate.

I don't know anyone who is 100% in agreement with any political group's platform. I don't think such a think even exists, such a high level of agreement.

That being said, clearly, what was being stated is what gained such support, resulting in the election outcome that we have.

 

[thinkagain]

Big cities represent corruption, election fraud, welfare recipients which means more money for the political bosses to spend. They represent high poverty, high crime, and the status quo, they do not represent the ideals of the American people including the fly over area in this country

I really get tired of people like you who are civics challenged and have no idea what the budget of the United States entails. You blame the debt on Republicans when over 60% of the budget is entitlement and social engineering very little of which was Republican. There is no question that Republicans contributed but the bulk of the debt was generated by Democrat Presidents as the following shows

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 trillion
GW Bush, 4.9 trillion

Total 8.0 trillion dollars

Clinton 1.4 trillion
Obama 9.6 trillion

Total 11.0 trillion dollars so stop buying what the left tells you

I am a fiscal conservative and was around when Reagan was President.
I am not "civics" challenged but you are most certainly "Mathematically and Fiscally Challenged"

1) the fact that you would use Total debt as a measure of fiscal responsibility shows you are "fiscally Challenged"
2) The fact that even if one does use total debt, you can not compare the totals as if they were in constant dollars, which shows you are fiscally challenged
3) The fact that you can not add ... well .. I will not even go there.

The debt was roughly 12 Billion at the end of the last Bush Fiscal year. It is estimated to be 18.5 at the end of the last Obama fiscal year... which ends in Oct 2017.

6.5 Trillion vs 9.5 Trillion is a big difference. What happened to the other 3 Trillion dollars ? and who is buying into propaganda ?

If one is looking at things realistically ... Bush is responsible for at least another 2 Trillion off of Obama's number.

Increase or decrease in "Deficits" is one reasonable measure of fiscal responsibility (barring some kind of disaster for which the President can not really be blamed ... like the 2008 Crash)

Reagan racked up huge deficits ... ended up doubling the size of the Debt during his watch. Bush Sr. did the same. When Clinton got in things were out of control and something had to be done.

This was not so much from a desire from Clinton ... it just had to be done and both sides did it. Under Clinton deficits came down nearly to par. Bush was handed a nearly balanced budget and ended up handing Obama a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

Anyone can increase the size of Gov't .. spending like crazy.. that's easy. It is stopping a speeding train that is difficult ... reducing spending

Much of the reduction under Obama was not due so much to fiscal restraint as it was increased revenue so you would be wrong if you think I am giving Obama Kudo's.

The fact of the matter however is that under Obama the deficit went from 1.4 Trillion down to 500 Billion.

Bush Jr. was fiscal clown show. Total Military Spending in 2000 was roughly 300 Billion.

After 8 years of Bush TMS was over 900 Billion and under Obama eclipsed 1 Trillion.

For what ? - To go after some dude who was not even involved in 911 ? A fellow who, while a bad guy, was a blood enemy of Obama.

Had we maintained 2000 spending levels (which were already ridiculously high on a relative basis) ... even increasing with inflation this would have freed up 500 Billion/year over 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars that could have been spent on infrastructure, technology, education and ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium.

Even with this trillion dollar spend, "Defense Spending" is decreasing because veterans affairs is eating up more and more of the total. Not only did we break the bank on the war in Iraq - killing 5000 US soldiers for no reason.. there were tens of thousands physically wounded and tens of thousands more that were psychologically wounded and now need to be taken care of.

Healthcare - the other major item - did not get less expensive under Bush - or Obama for that matter.

It was a mess under Red and it is a mess under Blue. The US spends more than any other first world country on healthcare yet is the only one not to have universal healthcare.

So much for "private competition". How is it that the bloated bureaucracies in other nations are more efficient than our private system ? This is impossible. Those healthcare bureaucracies are ugly monsters of inefficiency, waste and overhead.

It's called price fixing and anti competitive practices via the healthcare oligopolies. How can Canada's drug prices (for the same drug) be 5 times cheaper in many cases and yet they have 1/10th the purchasing power ? Riddle me that one.

What did Red do to change this ? Nothing. What did Blue do to change this ? Nothing.

Wake the frick up and stop apologizing for Red Sodomy.

 

[Conservative]

I am a fiscal conservative and was around when Reagan was President.
I am not "civics" challenged but you are most certainly "Mathematically and Fiscally Challenged"

1) the fact that you would use Total debt as a measure of fiscal responsibility shows you are "fiscally Challenged"
2) The fact that even if one does use total debt, you can not compare the totals as if they were in constant dollars, which shows you are fiscally challenged
3) The fact that you can not add ... well .. I will not even go there.

The debt was roughly 12 Billion at the end of the last Bush Fiscal year. It is estimated to be 18.5 at the end of the last Obama fiscal year... which ends in Oct 2017.

6.5 Trillion vs 9.5 Trillion is a big difference. What happened to the other 3 Trillion dollars ? and who is buying into propaganda ?

If one is looking at things realistically ... Bush is responsible for at least another 2 Trillion off of Obama's number.

Increase or decrease in "Deficits" is one reasonable measure of fiscal responsibility (barring some kind of disaster for which the President can not really be blamed ... like the 2008 Crash)

Reagan racked up huge deficits ... ended up doubling the size of the Debt during his watch. Bush Sr. did the same. When Clinton got in things were out of control and something had to be done.

This was not so much from a desire from Clinton ... it just had to be done and both sides did it. Under Clinton deficits came down nearly to par. Bush was handed a nearly balanced budget and ended up handing Obama a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

Anyone can increase the size of Gov't .. spending like crazy.. that's easy. It is stopping a speeding train that is difficult ... reducing spending

Much of the reduction under Obama was not due so much to fiscal restraint as it was increased revenue so you would be wrong if you think I am giving Obama Kudo's.

The fact of the matter however is that under Obama the deficit went from 1.4 Trillion down to 500 Billion.

Bush Jr. was fiscal clown show. Total Military Spending in 2000 was roughly 300 Billion.

After 8 years of Bush TMS was over 900 Billion and under Obama eclipsed 1 Trillion.

For what ? - To go after some dude who was not even involved in 911 ? A fellow who, while a bad guy, was a blood enemy of Obama.

Had we maintained 2000 spending levels (which were already ridiculously high on a relative basis) ... even increasing with inflation this would have freed up 500 Billion/year over 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars that could have been spent on infrastructure, technology, education and ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium.

Wake the frick up and stop apologizing for Red Sodomy.

Yes, you are indeed civics challenged and didn't answer the question. the govt. isn't in business to make a profit however it isn't in the business to run up a 20 trillion dollar debt. I only pointed out the total debt was 2.6 trillion when Reagan left office to show the comparison to GDP which the left loves to use. I am done arguing Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama because I am not ever going to change your mind nor do I care to do so. You lost the election on Tuesday and Trump won. Obama policies which would have been implemented by Hillary were defeated. Obama's legacy was on the ballot and he lost as well, not because of racism but because of stagnant GDP growth, those jobs that were created are mostly part time for economic reasons, his foreign policy was a disaster, his stimulus failed, and ACA is a failure. Hillary was an extension of Obama and her performance and results in all the positions held were totally ignored as people bought the rhetoric

I voted for Trump because he was a better alternative to Hillary and wasn't part of the group that created the problems. With Trump we have at least a chance for change, with Hillary not at all.

 

[thinkagain]

I am sure that is what the left tells you but I offered you a problem that would double GDP, create 17 million jobs, grow FIT revenue over 60%, and create a peace dividend at a cost of 1.7 trillion dollars, would you do it realizing that the total debt when Reagan left office was 2.6 trillion on a 5.2 trillion dollar economy? What is the debt to GDP ration today?

You are right, the majority of the economy, 2/3, is indeed consumer spending which is why tax cuts are so beneficial as it puts more money into the hands of the consumer regardless of what they do with it. The ones adamant against tax cuts are the left because they realize that people with more of their own money don't need liberals

Reagan increased deficits like crazy starting the huge run up of debt.

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight

https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

Anyone can increase economic activity through deficit spending. Try increasing the economy while reducing the deficit !

That 1.8 Trillion dollars is worth 2.5 x that amount in todays money = 4.5 Trillion. ( I cheated a bit by using 1983 dollars but still. Call it 3.6 Trillion.

The difference is that Reagan started with a deficit of next to nothing. Obama started with a deficit of 1.4 Trillion.

Reagan was also helped out by an economy that was overdue for an upturn as baby boomer spending kicked in. This had zero to do with anything Reagan did.

Trump's tax cuts will cost an estimated 400 - 600 Billion/year. I am all for lower taxes (who isn't) but the consumer will lose all the benefit through inflation due to increased deficit.

That tax cut will raise the deficit from 500 Billion to 1 Trillion/year. First you complain about debt and now you want to increase the debt. You can not have cake and eat it to.

In the 1950's the worker/corp tax split was 50/50.... and our economy was just fine.

Thanks to Reagan that split is now 80/20 or worse. All in the name of "Big Corps create Jobs".

So now I get to pay McDonald's share of the tax bill so they can create a few minimum wage jobs. Jobs that would be there anyway were McDonalds to disappear.

Speaking of Jobs .. What Jobs ? the manufacturing sector is gone because - "outsourcing lowers prices" Somehow I still pay 100 dollars for a pair of Nike shoes made by slave labor in some foreign country. What is worse is that the majority of that profit remains offshore so it does not get taxed.

This is what Reagan brought us.

 

[thinkagain]

I don't know anyone who is 100% in agreement with any political group's platform. I don't think such a think even exists, such a high level of agreement.

That being said, clearly, what was being stated is what gained such support, resulting in the election outcome that we have.

It is not about being 100% in agreement. I would like to see a poll on what percent of Trump voters favor a ban on abortion. Take the nay's away and Trump does not get elected.

Yet .. the mass media pundits are parading around pretending they have such a mandate.

There was no general mandate other than "We don't like the Establishment". What this means is going to be different depending on the individual and most are not informed well enough to know where to vent their anger but, the know they are getting sodomized and the establishment is doing it.

The people are starting to wake up but, their anger has yet to find it's target. Right now it is like putting a machine gun on a spinning platform and having it fire randomly.

 

[thinkagain]

Yes, you are indeed civics challenged and didn't answer the question. the govt. isn't in business to make a profit however it isn't in the business to run up a 20 trillion dollar debt. I only pointed out the total debt was 2.6 trillion when Reagan left office to show the comparison to GDP which the left loves to use. I am done arguing Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama because I am not ever going to change your mind nor do I care to do so. You lost the election on Tuesday and Trump won. Obama policies which would have been implemented by Hillary were defeated. Obama's legacy was on the ballot and he lost as well, not because of racism but because of stagnant GDP growth, those jobs that were created are mostly part time for economic reasons, his foreign policy was a disaster, his stimulus failed, and ACA is a failure. Hillary was an extension of Obama and her performance and results in all the positions held were totally ignored as people bought the rhetoric

I voted for Trump because he was a better alternative to Hillary and wasn't part of the group that created the problems. With Trump we have at least a chance for change, with Hillary not at all.

I voted Trump for selfish personal reasons ( I am benefited by his stance on oil). I agree that Hillary represented no chance for change ... and it would have been beyond painful to listen to her for 4 years (nails on a chalkboard)

That as it may be - this does not change the "demonstrable fact" that Red has been just as fiscally irresponsible as Blue. This whole Reagan worship is a recent phenomenon based on made up nonsense.

I give a link in the other post from the misis institute - a libertarian think take. This is just one of the first things that came up on a search I did but .... I did not just wake up in the morning and start having this conversation.

I gave up on fiscal responsibility within the Republican party during the Bush Sr. years. It is you that is buying into propaganda .. not me.

That you would come up with an Obama number like 9.5 Trillion should tell you something about the sources that you were reading.

I do not blame you though ... Romney was saying the same things and most of the rest of the GOP pundits. These people are clowns .. no better than Blue.

I call a fricken spade a spade.

I remember the "Business Candidate" Mitt Romney Clown a couple of years after the crash when he was starting his run for president.

I remember him (and you will as well) crying the blues about Jobs and how unemployment had increased under Obama.

Well no Shart Sherlock ??

1) Housing Bubble Burst, housing market crashes -many lose their homes and everyone loses as much as half the value or more of their homes.
2) Deficit soars to 1.4 Trillion
3) Federal Revenue drops from 2.7 Trillion to 2.1 Trillion (This accounted for 600 Billion of the Deficit for 2009)
4) Stock market "Crashes" from 14,000 to 6500
5) Financial system on verge of collapse (commercial paper markets frozen - do you know what this means ?) When GE wants to build a 5 billion dollar nuclear power plant ... they do not have this money in the bank. They borrow from the commercial paper markets. If these markets are frozen GE does not do the Job. The whole economy grinds to a halt and we go onto a depression.

Like or Hate Obama. This was his first day in office. If you have some solutions that did not include not cutting the deficit too fast .. I am all ears. The spending during the first couple of years was completely bipartisan. It had to be done to save the system.

Anyway... back to the Romney Clown. aka (business candidate). Now I expect politicians to lie but, there are limits. If there ever was a time to stand up for the country, this was it.

After the above - even the lowest factory worker can figure out that he is lucky to still have a job. Yet .. business candidate Romney Clown can not figure out that after the above the economy is going to shed jobs for a number of years and there is nothing anyone could have done about it.

Of course Romney knew this ... which only makes him that much more of a disingenuous clown.

 

[Conservative]

I voted Trump for selfish personal reasons ( I am benefited by his stance on oil). I agree that Hillary represented no chance for change ... and it would have been beyond painful to listen to her for 4 years (nails on a chalkboard)

That as it may be - this does not change the "demonstrable fact" that Red has been just as fiscally irresponsible as Blue. This whole Reagan worship is a recent phenomenon based on made up nonsense.

I give a link in the other post from the misis institute - a libertarian think take. This is just one of the first things that came up on a search I did but .... I did not just wake up in the morning and start having this conversation.

I gave up on fiscal responsibility within the Republican party during the Bush Sr. years. It is you that is buying into propaganda .. not me.

That you would come up with an Obama number like 9.5 Trillion should tell you something about the sources that you were reading.

I do not blame you though ... Romney was saying the same things and most of the rest of the GOP pundits. These people are clowns .. no better than Blue.

I call a fricken spade a spade.

I remember the "Business Candidate" Mitt Romney Clown a couple of years after the crash when he was starting his run for president.

I remember him (and you will as well) crying the blues about Jobs and how unemployment had increased under Obama.

Well no Shart Sherlock ??

1) Housing Bubble Burst, housing market crashes -many lose their homes and everyone loses as much as half the value or more of their homes.
2) Deficit soars to 1.4 Trillion
3) Federal Revenue drops from 2.7 Trillion to 2.1 Trillion (This accounted for 600 Billion of the Deficit for 2009)
4) Stock market "Crashes" from 14,000 to 6500
5) Financial system on verge of collapse (commercial paper markets frozen - do you know what this means ?) When GE wants to build a 5 billion dollar nuclear power plant ... they do not have this money in the bank. They borrow from the commercial paper markets. If these markets are frozen GE does not do the Job. The whole economy grinds to a halt and we go onto a depression.

Like or Hate Obama. This was his first day in office. If you have some solutions that did not include not cutting the deficit too fast .. I am all ears. The spending during the first couple of years was completely bipartisan. It had to be done to save the system.

Anyway... back to the Romney Clown. aka (business candidate). Now I expect politicians to lie but, there are limits. If there ever was a time to stand up for the country, this was it.

After the above - even the lowest factory worker can figure out that he is lucky to still have a job. Yet .. business candidate Romney Clown can not figure out that after the above the economy is going to shed jobs for a number of years and there is nothing anyone could have done about it.

Of course Romney knew this ... which only makes him that much more of a disingenuous clown.

Much of what you posted I agree with HOWEVER if you know basic civics you would understand who promoted the housing crisis and who benefited from it. Also you would know who controlled the Congress when the recession happened and the bubble burst. Threads here explain the bubble that started in the 90's and burst under Bush. Obama was part of the Congress that created the problem and rather than legislate to prevent the problem he promoted it for personal gain

Not only didn't Obama cut the deficit he added trillion dollar deficits his first four years in office. I will never understand why people buy the leftwing rhetoric and ignore the leftwing results as well as basic civics. The results are there for all to see but the main result is Obama and Hillary lost on Tuesday and that is all that matters. Now at least we have a chance for change