Democrats in trouble for 2010, Rove article in Wall Street Journal.

[oreo]

And yet they were nowhere to be found during the 8 years of the worst president in US history.

When you liberals "finally" figure out that Americans understand the cost of 9/11--2 insuing wars & hurricane Katrina--compared to bailing out the too "big to fail" & signing off on a 450 billion dollar Ominus bill loaded with over 8000 earmarks--while in Obama's words--"we are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression"--then maybe you'll get a slight clue as to what common sense really is-- Because there is a huge difference in spending--not amounts--but the reasons for the spending.

So go stick your head back in the sand & wake up after the elections of 2010. The writing is on the wall--New Jersey & Virginia are only a pre-view of what is coming--

 

[Political Junky]

I'm shocked, shocked, that Rove would predict bad things for the Democratic Party.

 

[Rinata]

And yet they were nowhere to be found during the 8 years of the worst president in US history.

When you liberals "finally" figure out that Americans understand the cost of 9/11--2 insuing wars & hurricane Katrina--compared to bailing out the too "big to fail" & signing off on a 450 billion dollar Ominus bill loaded with over 8000 earmarks--while in Obama's words--"we are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression"--then maybe you'll get a slight clue as to what common sense really is-- Because there is a huge difference in spending--not amounts--but the reasons for the spending.

So go stick your head back in the sand & wake up after the elections of 2010. The writing is on the wall--New Jersey & Virginia are only a pre-view of what is coming--

View attachment 8976

When are you going to realize that your attempts at pretending that Bush was a success only make you appear very foolish?? Here are a few things from one of my favorite articles. I have a lot of them.

As the Clinton administration ended, the United States entered the new century and decade with the strongest, most-resilient, most-adaptable, and technologically advanced economy on the face of the earth, according to an analysis by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Job growth had been enormous in the 'Roaring 90s' -- with more than 22 million jobs created in eight years. Median incomes were rising, poverty rates were at their lowest levels in decades. Business investment and new business formation were strong. The stock market was booming, capital markets were sound, and driven by the promise of new technologies, the United States was poised to enter a new phase of growth and development, with the benefits spread across its society.

**
The Bush administration began in 2001 with the passage of a $1.35 trillion tax cut -- a cut many economists and analysts felt was not necessary, given that the U.S. economy was already recovering from the mini 2001 recession.

But the biggest problem with the tax cut was that it was tilted too much toward the rich and upper-income citizens -- Bush's political base -- and it almost guaranteed that, over time, broad-based demand would remain soft, and probably fail, in a few years.

Moreover, Bush's refusal to build on President Clinton's successful earned income tax credit (EITC) policies -- which literally lift millions of working poor / lower income adults and families out of poverty annually -- further prevented the bulk of society from benefiting as much as upper-income groups during his years.

President Bill Clinton favored the EITC because he believed that, "If you work hard, play by the rules, you ought to be able to live a decent life." President Bush disagreed with Clinton's policy, and sure enough, as his presidency continued, the decent life slipped away for many, typical citizens, including millions of working families.

Under Bush, there was no energy policy, massive budget deficits, and no job growth. And that's the truth. He ruined the country after Bill Clinton left office. And that's a fact.

And don't blame 9/11. He left Afghanistan to go to Iraq for no good reason.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/the-bush-economic-legacy-the-u-s-s-decade-of-descent/

 

[SFC Ollie]

And yet they were nowhere to be found during the 8 years of the worst president in US history.

When you liberals "finally" figure out that Americans understand the cost of 9/11--2 insuing wars & hurricane Katrina--compared to bailing out the too "big to fail" & signing off on a 450 billion dollar Ominus bill loaded with over 8000 earmarks--while in Obama's words--"we are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression"--then maybe you'll get a slight clue as to what common sense really is-- Because there is a huge difference in spending--not amounts--but the reasons for the spending.

So go stick your head back in the sand & wake up after the elections of 2010. The writing is on the wall--New Jersey & Virginia are only a pre-view of what is coming--

View attachment 8976

When are you going to realize that your attempts at pretending that Bush was a success only make you appear very foolish?? Here are a few things from one of my favorite articles. I have a lot of them.

As the Clinton administration ended, the United States entered the new century and decade with the strongest, most-resilient, most-adaptable, and technologically advanced economy on the face of the earth, according to an analysis by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Job growth had been enormous in the 'Roaring 90s' -- with more than 22 million jobs created in eight years. Median incomes were rising, poverty rates were at their lowest levels in decades. Business investment and new business formation were strong. The stock market was booming, capital markets were sound, and driven by the promise of new technologies, the United States was poised to enter a new phase of growth and development, with the benefits spread across its society.

**
The Bush administration began in 2001 with the passage of a $1.35 trillion tax cut -- a cut many economists and analysts felt was not necessary, given that the U.S. economy was already recovering from the mini 2001 recession.

But the biggest problem with the tax cut was that it was tilted too much toward the rich and upper-income citizens -- Bush's political base -- and it almost guaranteed that, over time, broad-based demand would remain soft, and probably fail, in a few years.

Moreover, Bush's refusal to build on President Clinton's successful earned income tax credit (EITC) policies -- which literally lift millions of working poor / lower income adults and families out of poverty annually -- further prevented the bulk of society from benefiting as much as upper-income groups during his years.

President Bill Clinton favored the EITC because he believed that, "If you work hard, play by the rules, you ought to be able to live a decent life." President Bush disagreed with Clinton's policy, and sure enough, as his presidency continued, the decent life slipped away for many, typical citizens, including millions of working families.

Under Bush, there was no energy policy, massive budget deficits, and no job growth. And that's the truth. He ruined the country after Bill Clinton left office. And that's a fact.

And don't blame 9/11. He left Afghanistan to go to Iraq for no good reason.

The Bush economic legacy: The U.S.'s decade of descent - BloggingStocks

Your favorite article is from a blog written by a Joseph Lazzaro. Joe Lazzaro is a freelance fact and fiction writer. I wonder how much is fact and how much is fiction. We all know that Bush wasn't the greatest, we know he spent too much. But his day is over and we have a full lefty controlled Government spending us into oblivion. And we have got to stop it, and soon.

 

[rightwinger]

And yet they were nowhere to be found during the 8 years of the worst president in US history.

Thats because they didn't have FoxNews ordering them to protest 16 hours a day

 

[Rinata]

When you liberals "finally" figure out that Americans understand the cost of 9/11--2 insuing wars & hurricane Katrina--compared to bailing out the too "big to fail" & signing off on a 450 billion dollar Ominus bill loaded with over 8000 earmarks--while in Obama's words--"we are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression"--then maybe you'll get a slight clue as to what common sense really is-- Because there is a huge difference in spending--not amounts--but the reasons for the spending.

So go stick your head back in the sand & wake up after the elections of 2010. The writing is on the wall--New Jersey & Virginia are only a pre-view of what is coming--

View attachment 8976

When are you going to realize that your attempts at pretending that Bush was a success only make you appear very foolish?? Here are a few things from one of my favorite articles. I have a lot of them.

As the Clinton administration ended, the United States entered the new century and decade with the strongest, most-resilient, most-adaptable, and technologically advanced economy on the face of the earth, according to an analysis by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Job growth had been enormous in the 'Roaring 90s' -- with more than 22 million jobs created in eight years. Median incomes were rising, poverty rates were at their lowest levels in decades. Business investment and new business formation were strong. The stock market was booming, capital markets were sound, and driven by the promise of new technologies, the United States was poised to enter a new phase of growth and development, with the benefits spread across its society.

**
The Bush administration began in 2001 with the passage of a $1.35 trillion tax cut -- a cut many economists and analysts felt was not necessary, given that the U.S. economy was already recovering from the mini 2001 recession.

But the biggest problem with the tax cut was that it was tilted too much toward the rich and upper-income citizens -- Bush's political base -- and it almost guaranteed that, over time, broad-based demand would remain soft, and probably fail, in a few years.

Moreover, Bush's refusal to build on President Clinton's successful earned income tax credit (EITC) policies -- which literally lift millions of working poor / lower income adults and families out of poverty annually -- further prevented the bulk of society from benefiting as much as upper-income groups during his years.

President Bill Clinton favored the EITC because he believed that, "If you work hard, play by the rules, you ought to be able to live a decent life." President Bush disagreed with Clinton's policy, and sure enough, as his presidency continued, the decent life slipped away for many, typical citizens, including millions of working families.

Under Bush, there was no energy policy, massive budget deficits, and no job growth. And that's the truth. He ruined the country after Bill Clinton left office. And that's a fact.

And don't blame 9/11. He left Afghanistan to go to Iraq for no good reason.

The Bush economic legacy: The U.S.'s decade of descent - BloggingStocks

Your favorite article is from a blog written by a Joseph Lazzaro. Joe Lazzaro is a freelance fact and fiction writer. I wonder how much is fact and how much is fiction. We all know that Bush wasn't the greatest, we know he spent too much. But his day is over and we have a full lefty controlled Government spending us into oblivion. And we have got to stop it, and soon.

It's all true about Bush and you know it. And you sure didn't care when he spent money on a war that was so unjustified and ignored the economy and every other domestic issue. At least Obama is trying to help people.

 

[Rinata]

View attachment 8986

My favorite picture!!

 

[Maple]

View attachment 8986

My favorite picture!!

" When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson.

Tea Partiers rock on!!!! Come jan 2010 you are going to start to see the government fear the people. The vote is a comin.

 

[rightwinger]

View attachment 8986

My favorite picture!!

Who wouldn't take a teabagger seriously?

 

[sealybobo]

Most voters don't pay attention close enough to cast an educated vote. People in states that have blue dog democrats representing them don't care that those blue dogs are catering to lobbyists. Hell, they don't even seem at all different than the republicans they replaced. They still have to be sensitive to the tea bagging/anti abortion crowd.

The blue dog either goes along with the rich and powerful that control those state's politicians, or they get screwed when they run for re election.

And good democrats that won in typically red states will lose because most of the "independents" that voted for them last time tend to lean right. So unless that liberal they voted in does a lot, he/she will lose to the next conservative because the constituents in those states typically fall for right wing politics.

I would like to see blue dogs be replaced in their primaries. That way they don't get to even run again. If they aren't with the program, we shouldn't nominate them for re election. The democratic party should pick someone else. Like we did with Lieberman. It didn't work, but still was the right thing to do. He's a traitor to his party.

 

[oreo]

View attachment 8986

My favorite picture!!

Who wouldn't take a teabagger seriously?

I don't know--but these tea party people look fairly serious. Even people who look a little silly--VOTE---

 

[rightwinger]

View attachment 8986

My favorite picture!!

Who wouldn't take a teabagger seriously?

I don't know--but these tea party people look fairly serious. Even people who look a little silly--VOTE---

View attachment 8988

What is that?

17? 18 million people?

 

[oreo]

Who wouldn't take a teabagger seriously?

I don't know--but these tea party people look fairly serious. Even people who look a little silly--VOTE---

View attachment 8988

What is that?

17? 18 million people?

That picture you see there has already been debated over & over again by the media--& as stated by many in the media over 1 million.-:

Right Winger--the writing is on the wall. New Jersey & Virginia were only a pre-view of what is going to happen in 2010. Democrats are going to get massacred -- it's going to look worse than Custer's last stand. All states polling data are showing it. Democrats are either in trouble or several points behind the opposition.

 

[Rinata]

View attachment 8986

My favorite picture!!

Who wouldn't take a teabagger seriously?

Exactly!!!!!!

 

[oreo]

View attachment 8986

My favorite picture!!

Who wouldn't take a teabagger seriously?

Exactly!!!!!!

Here's another serious looking picture---




Just a question for you libs: How many of these non-serious & serious tea party picture people do you think are going to show up at the voting booths across this country in 2010?---

 

[Wicked Jester]

It's going to be great watching the republican controlled congress tell Obama to stick every one of his asinine liberal agenda items up his skinny, incompetent, moronic black ass after the '10 elections.

 

[oreo]

When are you going to realize that your attempts at pretending that Bush was a success only make you appear very foolish?? Here are a few things from one of my favorite articles. I have a lot of them.

As the Clinton administration ended, the United States entered the new century and decade with the strongest, most-resilient, most-adaptable, and technologically advanced economy on the face of the earth, according to an analysis by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Job growth had been enormous in the 'Roaring 90s' -- with more than 22 million jobs created in eight years. Median incomes were rising, poverty rates were at their lowest levels in decades. Business investment and new business formation were strong. The stock market was booming, capital markets were sound, and driven by the promise of new technologies, the United States was poised to enter a new phase of growth and development, with the benefits spread across its society.

**
The Bush administration began in 2001 with the passage of a $1.35 trillion tax cut -- a cut many economists and analysts felt was not necessary, given that the U.S. economy was already recovering from the mini 2001 recession.

But the biggest problem with the tax cut was that it was tilted too much toward the rich and upper-income citizens -- Bush's political base -- and it almost guaranteed that, over time, broad-based demand would remain soft, and probably fail, in a few years.

Moreover, Bush's refusal to build on President Clinton's successful earned income tax credit (EITC) policies -- which literally lift millions of working poor / lower income adults and families out of poverty annually -- further prevented the bulk of society from benefiting as much as upper-income groups during his years.

President Bill Clinton favored the EITC because he believed that, "If you work hard, play by the rules, you ought to be able to live a decent life." President Bush disagreed with Clinton's policy, and sure enough, as his presidency continued, the decent life slipped away for many, typical citizens, including millions of working families.

Under Bush, there was no energy policy, massive budget deficits, and no job growth. And that's the truth. He ruined the country after Bill Clinton left office. And that's a fact.

And don't blame 9/11. He left Afghanistan to go to Iraq for no good reason.

The Bush economic legacy: The U.S.'s decade of descent - BloggingStocks

Your favorite article is from a blog written by a Joseph Lazzaro. Joe Lazzaro is a freelance fact and fiction writer. I wonder how much is fact and how much is fiction. We all know that Bush wasn't the greatest, we know he spent too much. But his day is over and we have a full lefty controlled Government spending us into oblivion. And we have got to stop it, and soon.

It's all true about Bush and you know it. And you sure didn't care when he spent money on a war that was so unjustified and ignored the economy and every other domestic issue. At least Obama is trying to help people.

BOOOSH--had the support of 99.9% of democrats in the congress along with John Kerry who voted to go to war in Iraq before he voted against it--- John Kerry was in the senate intelligence committee & viewed all of the evidence regarding WMD & believed along with Bill Clinton & Al Gore that Sadam Husiene had WMD & was trying to acquire more. (So no conspiracy theories here.)

As far as BOOOSH ignoring the economy???? He reduced middle income taxes immediately after taking office (& during a recession that worked) to stimulate the economy. He also gave out on 2 different occasions tax rebates to those that paid taxes--commonly referred to as trickle down economics.

Your guy has decided to take tax-payer dollars & stimulate the economy all by himself--LOL. One of the bills he intends to sign off on--is the most recent where tax payer dollars will be used to build a SURGERY CENTER IN OUTER SPACE--LOL-- a gift of millions of tax payer dollars to Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska--ENJOY THAT NEW OUTER SPACE SURGERY CENTER---

If I were you--I really wouldn't want to be comparing the Bush economy to the flood the basement economy of Barack Obama--LOL--After all, there really aren't that many in this population that do road & bridge work!

How's all that Hopey & Changey workin for ya?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

View attachment 8986

My favorite picture!!

my favorite libtard picture and the leader of the left wing loons:

 

[uscitizen]

Well I have no idea who that is....

Guess I am not a left wing loonie.

 

[Rinata]

Who wouldn't take a teabagger seriously?

Exactly!!!!!!

Here's another serious looking picture---

View attachment 8990


Just a question for you libs: How many of these non-serious & serious tea party picture people do you think are going to show up at the voting booths across this country in 2010?---

Lovely.