3 things liberals can't lie about

[mudwhistle]

Unemployment when Bush left office 7.2
Unemployment now. 8.3
Gasoline prices when Bush left office. 1.78
Gasoline prices now. 3.76
Debt when Bush left office. 10 trillion
Debt now. 15 trillion.

Spin away.

I believe unemployment was at 7.8 but why quibble. The economy was shedding 750,000 jobs a month when Bush finally left office. It is now gaining 250,000 jobs a month. The Obama economy is making a million jobs a month more than Bush left him with

Gas dropped momentarily to $1.78 and then quickly shot up again. Lest we forget, Bush gave us our first $4.00 a gallon gas

Bush debt was $11.3 trillion and he was given a budget surplus when he started. Bush doubled his debt. Obamas budget has to compensate for two Bush wars, an unfunded Medicare Part D and a $2 trillion Bush tax cut

The economy was shedding 750,000 jobs a month when Bush left. If you assume that Bush was the only reason that was happening then we have to assume that everything that has happened since he left was Obama's fault. After all, the Democrats had control of Congress for two years and had plenty of time to screw up the economy before Bush left. Bush asked for good legislation and instead they sent him one protest bill after another.

The Democrats have been in power since Jan 07' so they had something to do with the bad economy. All during the 8 years of Bush they said the economy sucked when in fact it was better than it is now. Obama was one of them. He bares some of the blame.

In summary, liberals, you can't have it both ways. During the Bush years everything was blamed on Bush. To be fair, which I know you don't want to be, Obama is to blame for everything that happens under his watch, the good and the bad. If you won't accept that then I'll continue to cast blame for the poor economy Obama says he inherited on the Democrats.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You want me to explain why it doesn't matter? While you refuse to explain why it does?

You never took a Logic class did you?

Is that you rdodge from explaining why debt to GDP @ over 100% doesn't matters?

Ok ok. Are you ready? Here we go.

Debt over 100% of GDP does not matter because there are no negative consequences.

There we go! I'm sure you disagree, so I await your reasons why you disagree.

There are no negative consequences???

Yes, actually, there are. I'll give you a quick run of it since Plebs don't understand economics.

It is completely unsustainable. Which means two things. We can suddenly create a bigger GDP in order to pay down the debt, or we can make massive cuts to spending in order to pay it down. "Why pay it down?", is probably what you're thinking. And I'll leave you to that completely ignorant understanding.

 

[The T]

Unemployment when Bush left office 7.2
Unemployment now. 8.3
Gasoline prices when Bush left office. 1.78
Gasoline prices now. 3.76
Debt when Bush left office. 10 trillion
Debt now. 15 trillion.

Spin away.

I believe unemployment was at 7.8 but why quibble. The economy was shedding 750,000 jobs a month when Bush finally left office. It is now gaining 250,000 jobs a month. The Obama economy is making a million jobs a month more than Bush left him with

Gas dropped momentarily to $1.78 and then quickly shot up again. Lest we forget, Bush gave us our first $4.00 a gallon gas

Bush debt was $11.3 trillion and he was given a budget surplus when he started. Bush doubled his debt. Obamas budget has to compensate for two Bush wars, an unfunded Medicare Part D and a $2 trillion Bush tax cut

The economy was shedding 750,000 jobs a month when Bush left. If you assume that Bush was the only reason that was happening then we have to assume that everything that has happened since he left was Obama's fault. After all, the Democrats had control of Congress for two years and had plenty of time to screw up the economy before Bush left. Bush asked for good legislation and instead they sent him one protest bill after another.

The Democrats have been in power since Jan 07' so they had something to do with the bad economy. All during the 8 years of Bush they said the economy sucked when in fact it was better than it is now. Obama was one of them. He bares some of the blame.

In summary, liberals, you can't have it both ways. During the Bush years everything was blamed on Bush. To be fair, which I know you don't want to be, Obama is to blame for everything that happens under his watch, the good and the bad. If you won't accept that then I'll continue to cast blame for the poor economy Obama says he inherited on the Democrats.

And Obama was part of that Congress...that is when you could keep him off the campaign trail and voting 'present'

 

[Syphon]

I've yet to come across anything a Liberal wouldn't lie about.

FACT - Bush had the highest presidential disapproval rating in history at 71% his lowest approval rating is 25%, the only 2 presidents lower were Nixon (24%) and Truman (22%)

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Does the President control the price of gasoline?

If the President is a REPUBLICAN, then the answer is YES.

If the President is a DEMOCRAT, then the answer is NO.

It's called HYPOCRISY. It's the FOUNDATION of life for all leftists, including you, so EMBRACE it.

 

[mudwhistle]

We gained 250,000 new jobs in the private sector. We lost 6,000 in government.

Obama is laying people off and the free market is hiring.

Who's responsible?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unemployment when Bush left office 7.2
Unemployment now. 8.3
Gasoline prices when Bush left office. 1.78
Gasoline prices now. 3.76
Debt when Bush left office. 10 trillion
Debt now. 15 trillion.

Spin away.

Unemployment when Bush took office 4.2
Unemployment when Bush left office 7.2


Does the President control the price of gasoline?

When the policy of a president creates legislation that devalues the dollars yes the president does control the price of gas, since the value of the dollar dictates how much oil will be per barrel

 

[mudwhistle]

I've yet to come across anything a Liberal wouldn't lie about.

FACT - Bush had the highest presidential disapproval rating in history at 71% his lowest approval rating is 25%, the only 2 presidents lower were Nixon (24%) and Truman (22%)

How can Bush have the highest disapproval rating in history when in the same sentence you say Nixon and Truman had lower approval ratings???

Lie some more lib.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've yet to come across anything a Liberal wouldn't lie about.

FACT - Bush had the highest presidential disapproval rating in history at 71% his lowest approval rating is 25%, the only 2 presidents lower were Nixon (24%) and Truman (22%)

How can Bush have the highest disapproval rating in history when in the same sentence you say Nixon and Truman were higher???

Lie some more lib.

because he's a dumb ass thats why he can say what he says.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Is that you rdodge from explaining why debt to GDP @ over 100% doesn't matters?

Ok ok. Are you ready? Here we go.

Debt over 100% of GDP does not matter because there are no negative consequences.

There we go! I'm sure you disagree, so I await your reasons why you disagree.

There are no negative consequences???

Yes, actually, there are. I'll give you a quick run of it since Plebs don't understand economics.

It is completely unsustainable. Which means two things. We can suddenly create a bigger GDP in order to pay down the debt, or we can make massive cuts to spending in order to pay it down. "Why pay it down?", is probably what you're thinking. And I'll leave you to that completely ignorant understanding.

Being unsustainable is not a negative consequence. What negative impacts on our economy are happening due to this debt level. You have still not mentioned any.

 

[Syphon]

We gained 250,000 new jobs in the private sector. We lost 6,000 in government.

Obama is laying people off and the free market is hiring.

Who's responsible?

doesnt the GOP want smaller government? is this actually how you get smaller government?

 

[Syphon]

I've yet to come across anything a Liberal wouldn't lie about.

FACT - Bush had the highest presidential disapproval rating in history at 71% his lowest approval rating is 25%, the only 2 presidents lower were Nixon (24%) and Truman (22%)

How can Bush have the highest disapproval rating in history when in the same sentence you say Nixon and Truman had lower approval ratings???

Lie some more lib.

disapproval rating and approval rating are different.

United States presidential approval rating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

someone with an education might know the difference.

 

[DontBeStupid]

In summary, liberals, you can't have it both ways. During the Bush years everything was blamed on Bush. To be fair, which I know you don't want to be, Obama is to blame for everything that happens under his watch, the good and the bad. If you won't accept that then I'll continue to cast blame for the poor economy Obama says he inherited on the Democrats.

False.

During Bush's term, we liberals blamed him for things that he actually did, or when he had a clear choice and did not act. That's the difference. We blame him for things we can show he was responsible for. "Conservatives" don't even attempt that with Obama. They see something happen, like gas prices going up, and just close their eyes and blame Obama. That's not how life works. If you want to blame Obama, SHOW how he is responsible.

 

[The T]

I've yet to come across anything a Liberal wouldn't lie about.

FACT - Bush had the highest presidential disapproval rating in history at 71% his lowest approval rating is 25%, the only 2 presidents lower were Nixon (24%) and Truman (22%)

How can Bush have the highest disapproval rating in history when in the same sentence you say Nixon and Truman had lower approval ratings???

Lie some more lib.

He read the FAX backwards? Dislexia?

 

[DontBeStupid]

FACT - Bush had the highest presidential disapproval rating in history at 71% his lowest approval rating is 25%, the only 2 presidents lower were Nixon (24%) and Truman (22%)

How can Bush have the highest disapproval rating in history when in the same sentence you say Nixon and Truman had lower approval ratings???

Lie some more lib.

He read the FAX backwards? Dislexia?

You know they're two different things, right?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ok ok. Are you ready? Here we go.

Debt over 100% of GDP does not matter because there are no negative consequences.

There we go! I'm sure you disagree, so I await your reasons why you disagree.

There are no negative consequences???

Yes, actually, there are. I'll give you a quick run of it since Plebs don't understand economics.

It is completely unsustainable. Which means two things. We can suddenly create a bigger GDP in order to pay down the debt, or we can make massive cuts to spending in order to pay it down. "Why pay it down?", is probably what you're thinking. And I'll leave you to that completely ignorant understanding.

Being unsustainable is not a negative consequence. What negative impacts on our economy are happening due to this debt level. You have still not mentioned any.

Yes, you are right. It's a good thing and have no negative consequences. It's actually a really good thing. Which is why Obama is going to increase it ten fold.

 

[The T]

How can Bush have the highest disapproval rating in history when in the same sentence you say Nixon and Truman had lower approval ratings???

Lie some more lib.

He read the FAX backwards? Dislexia?

You know they're two different things, right?

And? Do you have a point here?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In summary, liberals, you can't have it both ways. During the Bush years everything was blamed on Bush. To be fair, which I know you don't want to be, Obama is to blame for everything that happens under his watch, the good and the bad. If you won't accept that then I'll continue to cast blame for the poor economy Obama says he inherited on the Democrats.

False.

During Bush's term, we liberals blamed him for things that he actually did, or when he had a clear choice and did not act. That's the difference. We blame him for things we can show he was responsible for. "Conservatives" don't even attempt that with Obama. They see something happen, like gas prices going up, and just close their eyes and blame Obama. That's not how life works. If you want to blame Obama, SHOW how he is responsible.

Sure you did.

 

[DontBeStupid]

There are no negative consequences???

Yes, actually, there are. I'll give you a quick run of it since Plebs don't understand economics.

It is completely unsustainable. Which means two things. We can suddenly create a bigger GDP in order to pay down the debt, or we can make massive cuts to spending in order to pay it down. "Why pay it down?", is probably what you're thinking. And I'll leave you to that completely ignorant understanding.

Being unsustainable is not a negative consequence. What negative impacts on our economy are happening due to this debt level. You have still not mentioned any.

Yes, you are right. It's a good thing and have no negative consequences. It's actually a really good thing. Which is why Obama is going to increase it ten fold.

Can't help but notice you didn't answer the question.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not going to spell it out. I concurred with you to save time, energy and sanity. It's a great thing to have debt over 100% of GDP.

I'm glad you showed me the light.