Carville to GOP: A Disaster on your hands!

clowns like this are why i cant respect liberals, they live in a fucking fantasy land. Literally NONE of this shit:


George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

is true. but they believe it. Its like they expect us to forget what we lived through.

we were HERE then Chirs, we know better.

1) the economy wasnt strong, the dot come bubble popped and THEN 9-11 crashed the markets to splinters, and he was STILL able to fix it.

2) there was never a surplus you tampon, it was a projected 10 year surplus. this lie gets repeted daily by liberals, like we dont know any better. If you gotta lie to make apoint, you dont have one.....

3) we were not a nation at peace, the 9-11 attackers were all already in the country if you recall, Bush didnt attack them, they attacked US.

seriously, you cant lie about shit WE SAW WITH OUR OWN EYES
 
Obamaville.jpg
 
1) the economy wasnt strong, the dot come bubble popped and THEN 9-11 crashed the markets to splinters, and he was STILL able to fix it.

2) there was never a surplus you tampon, it was a projected 10 year surplus. this lie gets repeted daily by liberals, like we dont know any better. If you gotta lie to make apoint, you dont have one.....

3) we were not a nation at peace, the 9-11 attackers were all already in the country if you recall, Bush didnt attack them, they attacked US.

1) You're right, but then the economy got "fixed" with another bubble - this time from housing - which made things even worse when it popped than the last one. I remember Shrub hawking the idea of an "ownership society" at the time.

2) Projected or not, at least we were on the right track. An unnecessary tax cut and a huge, expensive invasion/occupation later (with no tax increase to pay for any of it)...

3) Not gonna argue that one. There's a lot of speculation on whether or not he was warned ahead of time, but I'm guessing even a President McCain or Gore would have probably not "gotten" it because it was just inconcievable that such a thing could happen here until it actually happened.
 
How hard is it to understand that you might have seen the opening salvo of an insurgency? If the people are not in the mood to be moderate, Moderate Mitt is done. He has hesitated and stumbled one too many times.

Democrats and republicans have only one question to determine the course of the election. Is the vote in South Carolina an isolated act of anger or a signal that there is a more serious general rebellion brewing.
 
Bush did not inherit a strong economy. Bush inherited the remnants of a bubble economy that was on the verge of tipping over, just like Obama.

Obama inherited a capsized economy not one on the verge of tipping over. Let's be real here.

So why does WHEN an economy was tipping over matter? The fact is, as much as I hate to give Toto any credence, is that the bursting of bubbles (the tech bubble in 2000, the housing bubble in 2007) is what caused the collapses, not any president's particular policies. It's how the president reacted to the capsizing that was the issue.

IN Bush's case, he cut taxes, invigorated certain industries, and then had the misfortune of a national emergency and war break out. But still, the economy had largely recovered by 2004, and he got a second term. Bush also held people accountable. He prosecuted the Enron guys. He signed Sarnes-Oxbane. (I'm sure I got the name wrong.)

In Obama's case, he smartly continued Bush's initial policies, but then didn't hold anyone accountable. Frank-Dodd didn't fix the problems, just create more government that made the investment go to ground.

Now, to be fair to Obama, the Housing Bubble bursting was a much bigger deal than the Tech bubble bursting, but Obama's policies have made things worse, not better. Its' 2012, and we aren't anywhere near the end of this thing, with the threat of a second dip being triggered by the EuroZone collapse on the horizon.
 
1) You're right, but then the economy got "fixed" with another bubble - this time from housing - which made things even worse when it popped than the last one. I remember Shrub hawking the idea of an "ownership society" at the time.

2) Projected or not, at least we were on the right track. An unnecessary tax cut and a huge, expensive invasion/occupation later (with no tax increase to pay for any of it)...

3) Not gonna argue that one. There's a lot of speculation on whether or not he was warned ahead of time, but I'm guessing even a President McCain or Gore would have probably not "gotten" it because it was just inconcievable that such a thing could happen here until it actually happened.

1) The Democrats were right along with him, tauting the virtues of universal home ownership. And in principle, it's a good one. Owners have more pride than renters do. It's a great way to build communities. Where it all went wrong was when the wall street types decided to turn it into a casino. It wasn't that people were buying homes, it was that people were then refinancing and using homes they already owned as piggy banks.

2) If the Tax cut was wrong, why hasn't Obama repealed it? And I just don't mean his half-hearted attempts to repeal the parts that help rich folks, but I mean all of it. Even the goodies for the middle class. Because they'd run him out on a rail if he did.

3) But the fact is, he wasn't "warned" ahead of time. He got a breifing that was so vague from the CIA, with no new information. And the damning part of it was that "airplanes" were mentioned, but in the context of hostage taking, not suicide attacks. And the CIA said they didn't think the report, which came from French intelligence, was credible.

Bush's response. "Well, you've covered your ass" and went fishing.

Liberals interpret that as he didn't care. I interpret that as the CIA was doing bureaucratic bullshit to cover themselves if something did happen, even though they provided the president with no useful information.
 
owning a home is a great idea, but you cannot FORCE banks to give loans to people that cant pay them back.

that lands squarly on frank/dodd fannie/freddie, which bush TRIED to reform multiple times only to get blocked by the dems every time.

THAT and that alone is the single largest cause of the economic problems.

now then, welcome to 2009 when the obamasiah takes a bad situation, created by bad debt, and makes it WORSE by..ADDING TO THE DEBT

i bitched about bush spending too much, (even though i know the president doesnt spend much, the congress does, and spending only got really stupid in 2006 when the dems took over crongress) till 2009 when i saw what a really determined spender with a spender controlled congress can do.
 
I cannot personally tell you how pleased I am to see old Newt rise to the top after listening to all of your nauseating, sickening lectures on the evils of government and the importance of family values.

Now, you guys have to deal with a $1.6 million Freddie Mac consultant (who says he wasn't a lobbyist) who has been married three times.

:lol:

It really is almost too much to believe, isn't it?

The family values, anti-government Party running with the Newtster?

Oh my Lord! that's rich.

What is the GOP Establishment going to do with Newt! He is out of control and could walk away with the nomination! :eek:
 

Forum List

Back
Top