Do Republicans Really mean what they say?

[beowolfe]

Are you really this stupid?
No booming economy? Growth was brisk from 2001 to 2007.
No jobs? How about record low unemployment levels during that time?
Invasion of Iraq? WTF are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything?

WHy not go PUT IT ON C-SPAN????

When Dubya took office in January 2000, the umemployment rate was 4.8%. When he left office in January 2009, it was 7.7%. When he took office the GDP was $9.255 trillion; when he left it was $14.2 trillion. So, let's see. So, from bookend to bookend, in Dubya's administration, the unemployment rate went up, the GDP went up.

I would think that if you looked deeper, you'd find those at the high end of the income scale increased their take, while those in the middle and at the bottom, lost ground. So, if this is not a case of the 'rich getting richer', then what would be?

Actually when he took office the rate was 4.2%. When Democrats took control of Congress the rate was 4.6%, down from the recession's high of 6.1% (remember the news media screaming about Bush's "jobless recovery"??). The unemployment rate rose thereafter to our present over 10% rate.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
GDP rose nearly 50% during his tenure, despite a recession at the beginning.
I would think you would find that the middle class rose up into the wealthy and the poor saw their incomes rise.
If this is not a case of "Republicans benefit the economy, Democrats destroy it" then what would it be?

You're right, the number of millionaires did increase.

The number of households with $5 million or more in investable assets — excluding the family home — rose by 26 percent to a record 930,000, according to a study by Spectrem Group. That is the biggest jump since Spectrem began its survey in 1996. The number of millionaires rose by 11 percent, to a record 8.3 million – the second biggest jump in the decade since they were surveyed.

But as you can see, it only grew to 8.3 million people. Howver, the number of people in poverty in 2000 was approximately 31 million. In 2006, the number was approximately 35million. So, as you can see, it appears Republicans economic policy lends itself to create two extremes: the rich and the poor. I would tend to think that the 20th century showed us the things that can be accomplished with a strong and large middle class. History is littered with the remants of societies who tried to live at the extremes. IMO, having large numbers of rich and large numbers of poor is not good for the nation.

 

[beowolfe]

It was Democratic greed and arguing over who gets the biggest piece of pork that killed the bill when the Dems had the supermajority.

US Senate total members 100
Democratic senators - 58
Republican Senators -40
Independent Senators -2

Supermajority = 60

Now, explain to me HOW the democrats had a supermajority? You're not thinking for yourself, you're regurgitating things from the media and the politicians. THINK!!!

 

[del]

It was Democratic greed and arguing over who gets the biggest piece of pork that killed the bill when the Dems had the supermajority.

US Senate total members 100
Democratic senators - 58
Republican Senators -40
Independent Senators -2

Supermajority = 60

Now, explain to me HOW the democrats had a supermajority? You're not thinking for yourself, you're regurgitating things from the media and the politicians. THINK!!!

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

 

[beowolfe]

It was Democratic greed and arguing over who gets the biggest piece of pork that killed the bill when the Dems had the supermajority.

US Senate total members 100
Democratic senators - 58
Republican Senators -40
Independent Senators -2

Supermajority = 60

Now, explain to me HOW the democrats had a supermajority? You're not thinking for yourself, you're regurgitating things from the media and the politicians. THINK!!!

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

And do they VOTE with the Dems. Heck no....the dems don't necessarily vote with the dems. A supermajority is not a cacus number, it's a VOTING number.

Dictionary: su·per·ma·jor·i·ty (sū'pər-mə-jôr'ĭ-tē, -jŏr'-)
Sponsored LinksBank of America®
Helpful and Effective Solutions To Help Manage Your Finances.
www.BankofAmerica.com/Solutions

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n., pl., -ties.
A specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.

So, please feel sorry for yourself.

 

[del]

US Senate total members 100
Democratic senators - 58
Republican Senators -40
Independent Senators -2

Supermajority = 60

Now, explain to me HOW the democrats had a supermajority? You're not thinking for yourself, you're regurgitating things from the media and the politicians. THINK!!!

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

And do they VOTE with the Dems. Heck no....the dems don't necessarily vote with the dems. A supermajority is not a cacus number, it's a VOTING number.

Dictionary: su·per·ma·jor·i·ty (sū'pər-mə-jôr'ĭ-tē, -jŏr'-)
Sponsored LinksBank of America®
Helpful and Effective Solutions To Help Manage Your Finances.
Personal Finance Tips from Bank of America

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n., pl., -ties.
A specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.

So, please feel sorry for yourself.

so you're saying that even if sanders and lieberman were registered as dems, they still wouldn't have a supermajority in the senate?

damn, that's gold medal quality stupid you're exhibiting-too bad the flame's out. i hope you have better luck in soichi in 2014.

 

[beowolfe]

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

And do they VOTE with the Dems. Heck no....the dems don't necessarily vote with the dems. A supermajority is not a cacus number, it's a VOTING number.

Dictionary: su·per·ma·jor·i·ty (sū'pər-mə-jôr'ĭ-tē, -jŏr'-)
Sponsored LinksBank of America®
Helpful and Effective Solutions To Help Manage Your Finances.
Personal Finance Tips from Bank of America

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n., pl., -ties.
A specified majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion or pass legislation.

So, please feel sorry for yourself.

so you're saying that even if sanders and lieberman were registered as dems, they still wouldn't have a supermajority in the senate?

damn, that's gold medal quality stupid you're exhibiting-too bad the flame's out. i hope you have better luck in soichi in 2014.

Yes. Anytime the senate gets at least 60 votes on any bill, it's a supermajority. If the bill doesn't get 60 votes, there is no supermajority. A supermajority cannot be determined in advance of a vote!!

 

[del]

And do they VOTE with the Dems. Heck no....the dems don't necessarily vote with the dems. A supermajority is not a cacus number, it's a VOTING number.



So, please feel sorry for yourself.

so you're saying that even if sanders and lieberman were registered as dems, they still wouldn't have a supermajority in the senate?

damn, that's gold medal quality stupid you're exhibiting-too bad the flame's out. i hope you have better luck in soichi in 2014.

Yes. Anytime the senate gets at least 60 votes on any bill, it's a supermajority. If the bill doesn't get 60 votes, there is no supermajority. A supermajority cannot be determined in advance of a vote!!

of course not.

that's why every hack and pundit kept crowing about it up until brown's election.

 

[beowolfe]

so you're saying that even if sanders and lieberman were registered as dems, they still wouldn't have a supermajority in the senate?

damn, that's gold medal quality stupid you're exhibiting-too bad the flame's out. i hope you have better luck in soichi in 2014.

Yes. Anytime the senate gets at least 60 votes on any bill, it's a supermajority. If the bill doesn't get 60 votes, there is no supermajority. A supermajority cannot be determined in advance of a vote!!

of course not.

that's why every hack and pundit kept crowing about it up until brown's election.

Everyone beliving a wrong thing doesn't make it right. You are apparently one of those who goes along as long as enough people agree. Even after showing you the definition of 'supermajority' and it's ties with votes, you're still arguing that it a number in a caucus. Just go on.

 

[del]

Yes. Anytime the senate gets at least 60 votes on any bill, it's a supermajority. If the bill doesn't get 60 votes, there is no supermajority. A supermajority cannot be determined in advance of a vote!!

of course not.

that's why every hack and pundit kept crowing about it up until brown's election.

Everyone beliving a wrong thing doesn't make it right. You are apparently one of those who goes along as long as enough people agree. Even after showing you the definition of 'supermajority' and it's ties with votes, you're still arguing that it a number in a caucus. Just go on.

yep, that's me, going along to get along.

i guess i'm not made of the stuff it takes to be a maverick like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was Democratic greed and arguing over who gets the biggest piece of pork that killed the bill when the Dems had the supermajority.

US Senate total members 100
Democratic senators - 58
Republican Senators -40
Independent Senators -2

Supermajority = 60

Now, explain to me HOW the democrats had a supermajority? You're not thinking for yourself, you're regurgitating things from the media and the politicians. THINK!!!

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

That means nothing. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He beat the Democrat to win re-election. He got 70% of the Republican vote. He endorsed John McCain for president.

Tell me, if an independent who ran against a Republican and won, and got 70% of the Democrat vote in the process, and then endorsed Barack Obama for president,

would you be calling him a Republican?

 

[NYcarbineer]

so you're saying that even if sanders and lieberman were registered as dems, they still wouldn't have a supermajority in the senate?

damn, that's gold medal quality stupid you're exhibiting-too bad the flame's out. i hope you have better luck in soichi in 2014.

Yes. Anytime the senate gets at least 60 votes on any bill, it's a supermajority. If the bill doesn't get 60 votes, there is no supermajority. A supermajority cannot be determined in advance of a vote!!

of course not.

that's why every hack and pundit kept crowing about it up until brown's election.

You might want to stop believing what the hacks and pundits tell you, and stick with the facts.

 

[Oldandtired]

US Senate total members 100
Democratic senators - 58
Republican Senators -40
Independent Senators -2

Supermajority = 60

Now, explain to me HOW the democrats had a supermajority? You're not thinking for yourself, you're regurgitating things from the media and the politicians. THINK!!!

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

That means nothing. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He beat the Democrat to win re-election. He got 70% of the Republican vote. He endorsed John McCain for president.

Tell me, if an independent who ran against a Republican and won, and got 70% of the Democrat vote in the process, and then endorsed Barack Obama for president,

would you be calling him a Republican?

He is a member of the democratic caucus.

WHy did youl leave THAT part out of your "comparison"?

 

[del]

US Senate total members 100
Democratic senators - 58
Republican Senators -40
Independent Senators -2

Supermajority = 60

Now, explain to me HOW the democrats had a supermajority? You're not thinking for yourself, you're regurgitating things from the media and the politicians. THINK!!!

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

That means nothing. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He beat the Democrat to win re-election. He got 70% of the Republican vote. He endorsed John McCain for president.

Tell me, if an independent who ran against a Republican and won, and got 70% of the Democrat vote in the process, and then endorsed Barack Obama for president,

would you be calling him a Republican?

i would if he caucused with the republicans.

it's really not a difficult concept, but please continue your flailing.

 

[Oldandtired]

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

That means nothing. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He beat the Democrat to win re-election. He got 70% of the Republican vote. He endorsed John McCain for president.

Tell me, if an independent who ran against a Republican and won, and got 70% of the Democrat vote in the process, and then endorsed Barack Obama for president,

would you be calling him a Republican?

i would if he caucused with the republicans.

it's really not a difficult concept, but please continue your flailing.

That is known as REALLY grasping for straws

 

[Misty]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

The rich did not get richer. If they had, they would be spending and hiring and contributing to the cash flow of the economy.

The rich spend money, the rich make jobs, the rich pay the majority of the taxes that give the have nots their free stuff.

 

[txlonghorn]

Are you really this stupid?
No booming economy? Growth was brisk from 2001 to 2007.
No jobs? How about record low unemployment levels during that time?
Invasion of Iraq? WTF are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything?

WHy not go PUT IT ON C-SPAN????

Don't get upset with him. CNN didn't properly program his mind with the truth so he doesn't know. I do no that between 2001 and 2007 that jobs were everywhere whether you want to attribute that to Bush tax cuts or not they were there. Its a complete fantasy land that they live in which is why I never discuss the outcome of any aspect of freedom such as free-enterprise. It becomes a debate about the negative affects of freedom and why it should be stopped.

This is why we never talk about the old school liberal concept of free-enterprise where it is for the individual and their prosperity but the conservative concept that individual ambition benefits the COLLECTIVE. The debate about how much freedom we should have has became about the positive or negative effects of that freedom.

Horseshit.

A $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble is not "free enterprize."

It's theft, pure and simple.

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

theft? so what do you call what's happening now? 780 billion buyout of america's devotion and devision. Your boy Obama is going down in flames...

 

[The Rabbi]

When Dubya took office in January 2000, the umemployment rate was 4.8%. When he left office in January 2009, it was 7.7%. When he took office the GDP was $9.255 trillion; when he left it was $14.2 trillion. So, let's see. So, from bookend to bookend, in Dubya's administration, the unemployment rate went up, the GDP went up.

I would think that if you looked deeper, you'd find those at the high end of the income scale increased their take, while those in the middle and at the bottom, lost ground. So, if this is not a case of the 'rich getting richer', then what would be?

Actually when he took office the rate was 4.2%. When Democrats took control of Congress the rate was 4.6%, down from the recession's high of 6.1% (remember the news media screaming about Bush's "jobless recovery"??). The unemployment rate rose thereafter to our present over 10% rate.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
GDP rose nearly 50% during his tenure, despite a recession at the beginning.
I would think you would find that the middle class rose up into the wealthy and the poor saw their incomes rise.
If this is not a case of "Republicans benefit the economy, Democrats destroy it" then what would it be?

You're right, the number of millionaires did increase.

The number of households with $5 million or more in investable assets — excluding the family home — rose by 26 percent to a record 930,000, according to a study by Spectrem Group. That is the biggest jump since Spectrem began its survey in 1996. The number of millionaires rose by 11 percent, to a record 8.3 million – the second biggest jump in the decade since they were surveyed.

But as you can see, it only grew to 8.3 million people. Howver, the number of people in poverty in 2000 was approximately 31 million. In 2006, the number was approximately 35million. So, as you can see, it appears Republicans economic policy lends itself to create two extremes: the rich and the poor. I would tend to think that the 20th century showed us the things that can be accomplished with a strong and large middle class. History is littered with the remants of societies who tried to live at the extremes. IMO, having large numbers of rich and large numbers of poor is not good for the nation.

I see statistics is not your strong point.
What was the population of the U.S. during that time? How many immigrants came here during that time, who would start at the bottom rung? Think it might be 5M people? More?
Your numbers show the number of people who were middle class moving into millionaire status (whatever that means--I'll bet you're confusing wealth with income again). That sounds like a good thing to me.
The "disappearing middle class" was debunked in Sowell's book Economic Fallacies.

 

[rdean]

Don't get upset with him. CNN didn't properly program his mind with the truth so he doesn't know. I do no that between 2001 and 2007 that jobs were everywhere whether you want to attribute that to Bush tax cuts or not they were there. Its a complete fantasy land that they live in which is why I never discuss the outcome of any aspect of freedom such as free-enterprise. It becomes a debate about the negative affects of freedom and why it should be stopped.

This is why we never talk about the old school liberal concept of free-enterprise where it is for the individual and their prosperity but the conservative concept that individual ambition benefits the COLLECTIVE. The debate about how much freedom we should have has became about the positive or negative effects of that freedom.

Horseshit.

A $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble is not "free enterprize."

It's theft, pure and simple.

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

theft? so what do you call what's happening now? 780 billion buyout of america's devotion and devision. Your boy Obama is going down in flames...

Boy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

because sanders and lieberman caucus with the democrats.

Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nice try, though.

well, not really, but i feel bad for you.

you should take your own advice.

That means nothing. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He beat the Democrat to win re-election. He got 70% of the Republican vote. He endorsed John McCain for president.

Tell me, if an independent who ran against a Republican and won, and got 70% of the Democrat vote in the process, and then endorsed Barack Obama for president,

would you be calling him a Republican?

i would if he caucused with the republicans.

it's really not a difficult concept, but please continue your flailing.

You have no clue what caucusing is. Sad day for you.

 

[del]

That means nothing. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He beat the Democrat to win re-election. He got 70% of the Republican vote. He endorsed John McCain for president.

Tell me, if an independent who ran against a Republican and won, and got 70% of the Democrat vote in the process, and then endorsed Barack Obama for president,

would you be calling him a Republican?

i would if he caucused with the republicans.

it's really not a difficult concept, but please continue your flailing.

You have no clue what caucusing is. Sad day for you.

why don't you explain it to me, then, learned one?