McBush...Can we afford four more years?

[greenpartyaz]

Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, and a $500 billion dollar budget deficit.

Stock market crashing.....

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Sep. 15, 2008

Thank you, Republicans, may you burn in hell.

Ha! Ha! Nice rage!

 

[oreo]

First I want to say that Mr Oreo is insane. Obama handled everything they threw at him. Rezko is a molehill compared to the mountain of special interest mccain is working with right now. what Rove did was create some villians for obama so it nullifies all of mccains baggage. It works on dumb voters.

As for Cafta. It was hillarys camp that told canada to ignore her anti cafta talk, and then they leaked that obama did that. it was one of many reasons I turned on hillary.

anyways, lehman brothers is another huge blow. some people will never get it. but gopanomics has screwed all of us, and if america votes for mccain, we deserve whatever happens. This is even affecting rich people. They deregulated so much and then made bad decisions. Now they want to say mccain is the agent of change?

It was Obama who secretly told the Canadians to ignore his statement that he would break existing NAFTA agreements.--Hillary was on defense during that time, because it was Bill Clinton who signed the bill.

Lehman brothers is a result of the mortgage crisis--not republicans or democrats. Done by greedy mortgage brokers, greedy home builders, & the utter ignorance of 4 million home buyers in this country that bought homes they could not afford. "This is common knowledge".

When the government gets involved in anything they screw it up. Freddie Mac & Fannie May both government programs brought on by the idea, that everyone in America should own a home, & oh by the way the U.S. government will guarantee those mortgage loans, what can you expect? A lot of irresponsible bankers--who assume no risk! The federal government should have never been involved in the mortgage loan business.

What has Karl Rove got to do with Obama?

Tony Rezco--a recently convicted felon--who knew Obama during his community organizing days are a problem for Obama--period. In fact Rezco was instrumental in getting the Obama's first home. Tony Rezco--of course convicted of ripping the city of Chicago off for millions over his slum lord deals.

Bill Ayers--An American terrorist group that bombed the pentagon & a police station back in the 1970's. Directly after 9/11, Bill Ayers stated he wish his group could have done more bombings. When the Obama campaign was asked about his relationship to Ayers, they said they were friends.

Then of course--the 20 year membership in the Pastor Wrights church, who still today, (Obama states he never heard those kind of statements from Pastor Wright) that the nation got to hear on the video releases.

So yes, Obama has some baggage. It's not that he's stood up or been vetted for these allegations. He's never been asked! With the Obama media networks annointing him the next POTUS, they're not going to ask, or even investigate.

 

[Chris]

Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, a $500 billion dollar budget deficit, and a Wall Street meltdown.

Bushie, you're doing a heckuva job!

 

[-Cp]

Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, a $500 billion dollar budget deficit, and a Wall Street meltdown.

Bushie, you're doing a heckuva job!

You sound like a stuck record that completely IGNORED (what a shock) the facts posted here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/784626-post10.html

 

[Dr Grump]

You sound like a stuck record that completely IGNORED (what a shock) the facts posted here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/784626-post10.html

Why are you only talking about GWs and Clinton's first three years in office re unemployment in the above link...

 

[-Cp]

Why are you only talking about GWs and Clinton's first three years in office re unemployment in the above link...

By contrast, Bush inherited an expansion that was on its last legs, and then he had to raise defense spending to deal with the biggest attack on America in its history–of course, neither Bush nor Congress has shown a whole lot of interest in controlling nondefense spending. Now, one way to statistically compare the two economic records is by looking at the Bush expansion vs. the Clinton expansion. And 21 quarters into each, the economy has grown 16.6 percent under Bush vs. 19.9 percent under Clinton–advantage No. 42.

And the unemployment rate 22 quarters into each expansion–jobs numbers come out more frequently – show that the current unemployment rate is 4.4 percent vs. 4.5 percent under Clinton. Slight edge to No. 43. Now, when you add in–or subtract out–the effects of the stock market (for Clinton) and housing bubbles (for Bush) and where each president began, I think this ends up as a "pick 'em" situation at this point. Here is what White House spokesman Tony Fratto told the Washington Examiner last week:

"This is a much stronger expansion in a lot of ways. It's much deeper and more measured ... If you go back to this point in the Clinton expansion, they would have loved to have seen the numbers that we have right now. ... On the unemployment rate, we're a full percentage point below where they were at the same point in the expansion–60 or 61 months in. They would have loved to have been at 4.4 percent. They were still up in the mid-5s, which is huge, when you think about it."

OK, let's use Fratto's methodology. I checked the employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that 60 months into the Clinton expansion, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent vs. 4.5 percent for Bush. The last time the jobless rate was as high as 5.3 percent under Clinton was January 1997, 49 months into the Clinton expansion. Fratto and I went back and forth on the numbers and how to best date the expansions, but his bottom line–via E-mail–is this:

But my bottom line is that neither Clinton nor Bush was or has been a game changer. (My friend Larry Kudlow has a great post on this topic here.) FDR was a game changer. Reagan was a game changer. I think to be a game changer today you have to 1) revamp America's social insurance program for the 21st-century challenges of globalization and changing demographics, and 2) reform America's creaky and complex tax system to better allow the nation to innovate and compete. Still waiting on those.

Bush vs. Clinton: The Economic Verdict - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

 

[Chris]

Why are you only talking about GWs and Clinton's first three years in office re unemployment in the above link...

Because he's full of shit.

We are only seeing the beginning of the Bush economic disaster.

The next president will have a big mess to clean up.

 

[Dr Grump]

By contrast, Bush inherited an expansion that was on its last legs, and then he had to raise defense spending to deal with the biggest attack on America in its history–of course, neither Bush nor Congress has shown a whole lot of interest in controlling nondefense spending. Now, one way to statistically compare the two economic records is by looking at the Bush expansion vs. the Clinton expansion. And 21 quarters into each, the economy has grown 16.6 percent under Bush vs. 19.9 percent under Clinton–advantage No. 42.

And the unemployment rate 22 quarters into each expansion–jobs numbers come out more frequently – show that the current unemployment rate is 4.4 percent vs. 4.5 percent under Clinton. Slight edge to No. 43. Now, when you add in–or subtract out–the effects of the stock market (for Clinton) and housing bubbles (for Bush) and where each president began, I think this ends up as a "pick 'em" situation at this point. Here is what White House spokesman Tony Fratto told the Washington Examiner last week:

"This is a much stronger expansion in a lot of ways. It's much deeper and more measured ... If you go back to this point in the Clinton expansion, they would have loved to have seen the numbers that we have right now. ... On the unemployment rate, we're a full percentage point below where they were at the same point in the expansion–60 or 61 months in. They would have loved to have been at 4.4 percent. They were still up in the mid-5s, which is huge, when you think about it."

OK, let's use Fratto's methodology. I checked the employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that 60 months into the Clinton expansion, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent vs. 4.5 percent for Bush. The last time the jobless rate was as high as 5.3 percent under Clinton was January 1997, 49 months into the Clinton expansion. Fratto and I went back and forth on the numbers and how to best date the expansions, but his bottom line–via E-mail–is this:

But my bottom line is that neither Clinton nor Bush was or has been a game changer. (My friend Larry Kudlow has a great post on this topic here.) FDR was a game changer. Reagan was a game changer. I think to be a game changer today you have to 1) revamp America's social insurance program for the 21st-century challenges of globalization and changing demographics, and 2) reform America's creaky and complex tax system to better allow the nation to innovate and compete. Still waiting on those.

Bush vs. Clinton: The Economic Verdict - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

Don't forget there who ran Congress under Clinton AND under Bush for the first couple of years....yet despite that, Clinton still balanced the budget, and Bush and a Repub congress couldn't sort their shit out....

 

[-Cp]

Why are you only talking about GWs and Clinton's first three years in office re unemployment in the above link...

Something you will never hear from the mainstream news...
The average unemployment rate during the Bush years is running lower than during the Clinton years.

Graph here:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SBs5J4WcJUI/AAAAAAAANUc/NiuWZhtdzMA/s1600-h/bush+numbers.JPG

Numbers from US Misery Index

 

[Dr Grump]

Because he's full of shit.

We are only seeing the beginning of the Bush economic disaster.

The next president will have a big mess to clean up.

That's why I'm kinda hoping for a Repub win. Four years won't give a Dem time to fix the mess, but I'm pretty sure they'll get the blame for the mess.

My only reservation WAS the appointment of Justices to your SC. However, now Palin is in the picture, suddenly my reservation has doubled. I think she will be a disaster....

 

[elvis]

Something you will never hear from the mainstream news...
The average unemployment rate during the Bush years is running lower than during the Clinton years.

The unemployment rate is deceiving. It only counts those who are still receiving benefits, not those whose benefits have run out. This also doesnt account for the folks who lost jobs paying 20 dollars per hour but now make 8.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not a jab at a military person. Just a jab at someone who gets a government check complaining about "socialism."

I work seven days a week, and I don't get a check from the government.

I get a government check? Dream on... The only 'government' check I ever received in my life was a MILITARY paycheck, doing more actual work than you ever dreamed of in your life, troll.... last one of those was almost 13 years ago

So yes... I will complain about socialism creeping into our government system, more and more, thanks to brain dead, lemming libs such as yourself

 

[xsited1]

No, the Republicans always allow deregulation which leads to abuse which leads to collapse.

And who walks away with the money? The big investors.

And who gets screwed? The little guy and the American taxpayer.

It's the Republican way.

I wouldn't say the Republicans always allow deregulation. They are to blame for over-regulation just like the Democrats. However, deregulation does not always lead to abuse. In fact, the opposite is true. Too much regulation leads to abuse and then to collapse. This happened in the California energy market a few years ago which was mistakenly assumed to be caused by deregulation. The opposite was true.

 

[sealybobo]

It was Obama who secretly told the Canadians to ignore his statement that he would break existing NAFTA agreements.--Hillary was on defense during that time, because it was Bill Clinton who signed the bill.

Lehman brothers is a result of the mortgage crisis--not republicans or democrats. Done by greedy mortgage brokers, greedy home builders, & the utter ignorance of 4 million home buyers in this country that bought homes they could not afford. "This is common knowledge".

When the government gets involved in anything they screw it up. Freddie Mac & Fannie May both government programs brought on by the idea, that everyone in America should own a home, & oh by the way the U.S. government will guarantee those mortgage loans, what can you expect? A lot of irresponsible bankers--who assume no risk! The federal government should have never been involved in the mortgage loan business.

What has Karl Rove got to do with Obama?

Tony Rezco--a recently convicted felon--who knew Obama during his community organizing days are a problem for Obama--period. In fact Rezco was instrumental in getting the Obama's first home. Tony Rezco--of course convicted of ripping the city of Chicago off for millions over his slum lord deals.

Bill Ayers--An American terrorist group that bombed the pentagon & a police station back in the 1970's. Directly after 9/11, Bill Ayers stated he wish his group could have done more bombings. When the Obama campaign was asked about his relationship to Ayers, they said they were friends.

Then of course--the 20 year membership in the Pastor Wrights church, who still today, (Obama states he never heard those kind of statements from Pastor Wright) that the nation got to hear on the video releases.

So yes, Obama has some baggage. It's not that he's stood up or been vetted for these allegations. He's never been asked! With the Obama media networks annointing him the next POTUS, they're not going to ask, or even investigate.

You are a walking talking point.

You lost the debate the minute you lied or didn't know that Hillary is the one that talked to Canada. Just because you repeat the Clinton lie doesn't make it true.

The mortgage crisis is due to deregulations. So Lehman brothers is ultimately due to de regulations. You don't get it that everything is connected. Maybe Rush will give you a new angle today because you are way off course with your wacked out thinking.

No, when the Republican government gets involved, things ALWAYS get screwed up. Look at how Clinton did things right. He didn't empty the treasury on defense or welfare. You don't realize for 8 years now we've been bankrupting the country on corporate welfare. Dummy. It's voters like you that allow the politicians to get away with anything.

Aiers and Wright are NOTHING compared to McCain's connections. Those two guys at best are ruining their own neighborhoods. McCain's ties are RUINING THE COUNTRY.

Have you seen the news lately? The country IS falling apart. Or is that unpatriotic to say?

 

[editec]

Something you will never hear from the mainstream news...
The average unemployment rate during the Bush years is running lower than during the Clinton years.

The unemployment rate is deceiving. It only counts those who are still receiving benefits, not those whose benefits have run out. This also doesnt account for the folks who lost jobs paying 20 dollars per hour but now make 8.

No it doesn't.

They're fibbing about our unemployment numbers, when they compare what we have now to a long time ago, but that's not how they're doing the fibbing.

Unemployment does not count the number of people collecting unemployment benefits.

It's done by a survey, believe it or not,

Nuts, that doesn't make any sense, you say?

Hell yeah, that's nuts.

That's, nevertheless, how it's done.

 

[editec]

I'd you're wrong on the first count, and comparing Obama to FDR isn't going to sell any tickets to the ball around here. FDR was a socialist. That's all anyone needs to know.

FDR saved capitalism, Gunny.

He probably saved this nation from having a violent revolution of the prolitariate.

Thngs really were that bad.

That's really all you need to know.

 

[xsited1]

When the government gets involved in anything they screw it up. Freddie Mac & Fannie May both government programs brought on by the idea, that everyone in America should own a home, & oh by the way the U.S. government will guarantee those mortgage loans, what can you expect? A lot of irresponsible bankers--who assume no risk! The federal government should have never been involved in the mortgage loan business.

Correct. It was government regulation and tampering of the financial markets that ulitimately led the the collapse. I don't understand why some people believe that government regulation is the cure for most every problem. Don't they remember the Great Depression? The politicians created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which then returned some of the profits to the politicians - sometimes directly, as campaign funds; sometimes as "contributions" to favored constituents. Because the government guaranteed their debt, Fannie and Freddie could borrow at better rates than true private-sector firms and accumulate far greater risks. The solution is to sell them off in pieces to true private ownership with no government backing.

 

[xsited1]

FDR saved capitalism, Gunny.

He probably saved this nation from having a violent revolution of the prolitariate.

Thngs really were that bad.

That's really all you need to know.

FDR saved capitalism? I hope they're not teaching that in Public Schools today, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Chris]

FDR saved capitalism? I hope they're not teaching that in Public Schools today, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Fucking idiot.

FDR was one of our greatest presidents.

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

 

[xsited1]

Fucking idiot.

FDR was one of our greatest presidents.

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

Wow, another person with anger issues. I realize that you idolize FDR, but many do not and for good reason. It seems pointless to tell you why, so I'll just say "good day."