both parties have enormous weaknesses, BUT

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought the stock market was evil?

 

[BallsBrunswick]

What the hell? This didn't come from shitty conservative blog therefore it must be fake!

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I thought the stock market was evil?

You think a lot of stupid things as evidenced every day here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Dubya was right again, Social Security should invest the "Trust Fund" in the stock market

 

[jillian]

I thought the stock market was evil?

what you pretend does not equal reality.

nor does increased stock returns obviate the criminal actions taken which caused the 2008 crash.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I thought the stock market was evil?

what you pretend does not equal reality.

nor does increased stock returns obviate the criminal actions taken which caused the 2008 crash.

Talk to Hank Paulson.

He said if Banks weren't bailed out the Economy would crash and there would be Martial Law. He got the bailout, authorized himself a huge bonus ($200 Million), yet the Economy crashed anyway.

 

[jwoodie]

These types of statistics are so fatuous that even liberal economists shy away from them. Among other things, a new President's economic policies don't even begin to be implemented until after his first year in office. For example, the economy was already recovering in the first quarter of 1992. Should President Clinton be credited with that growth?

These statistics also ignore the composition of Congress which, until recently, used to have an equal effect on economic policy. The election of a Republican Congress in 1994 had at least as much to do with the economic expansion of the late 1990's as President Clinton's (conservative) policies.

To be fair, neither should the economic downturn of the last four years be laid exclusively at President Obama's feet. But, like President Clinton, his first two years of one party rule didn't help very much.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So Dubya was right again, Social Security should invest the "Trust Fund" in the stock market

Be glad the government didn't do that. If they had, every cent would be gone now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

These types of statistics are so fatuous that even liberal economists shy away from them. Among other things, a new President's economic policies don't even begin to be implemented until after his first year in office. For example, the economy was already recovering in the first quarter of 1992. Should President Clinton be credited with that growth?

These statistics also ignore the composition of Congress which, until recently, used to have an equal effect on economic policy. The election of a Republican Congress in 1994 had at least as much to do with the economic expansion of the late 1990's as President Clinton's (conservative) policies.

To be fair, neither should the economic downturn of the last four years be laid exclusively at President Obama's feet. But, like President Clinton, his first two years of one party rule didn't help very much.

Please feel free to post PROOF that these numbers are wrong.

Thanks.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I thought the stock market was evil?

You think a lot of stupid things as evidenced every day here.

I'm sure he'll be back to explain why the stock market is "evil".

Right Frank?

 

[Harry Dresden]

I thought the stock market was evil?

You think a lot of stupid things as evidenced every day here.

I'm sure he'll be back to explain why the stock market is "evil".

Right Frank?

why are you asking?.....you disappear in 90% of your threads even though someone was answering a question YOU asked.....your gone .......

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the Republican Party has a weakness why won't a liberal say exactly what it is???