McCain mocked for comment on economy

[JimH52]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

I guess the economy looks pretty good where he and the Queen of Beer are sitting? Is it the Economy Stupid all over again?

 

[Ravi]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

I guess the economy looks pretty good where he and the Queen of Beer are sitting? Is it the Economy Stupid all over again?

Wellll...he is on record for saying he doesn't know anything about economics. As long as his fat government checks roll in and he avoids capital gains tax, he's got nothing to worry about. At the most, he might have to sell one of his wife's twelve homes.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I wonder if this is going to cause McInsane to re-define his definition of "rich".

Not only that, but, considering that the stock market dropped over 500 points this afternoon (watched it go from 300 all the way down to 504 on CNN), how in the hell can he possibly think that the economy is doing well?

Oh yeah.....I forgot.....his wife is an heiress and he doesn't know how many houses he has.

 

[xsited1]

Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the economy has gone downhill. What's up with that?

 

[Modbert]

Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the economy has gone downhill. What's up with that?

Republicans can still stonewall any vote in the Senate. Plus Dubya has veto power and the Democrats rarely have the chance to override it.

If the Democrats can get the majority and the White House then it's go time. If they continue to screw up, it's their fault.

 

[xsited1]

Republicans can still stonewall any vote in the Senate. Plus Dubya has veto power and the Democrats rarely have the chance to override it.

If the Democrats can get the majority and the White House then it's go time. If they continue to screw up, it's their fault.

But the economy was great when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 until about 2001. Why did that work?

 

[Modbert]

But the economy was great when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 until about 2001. Why did that work?

Republicans have had control of congress up until 2006.

Besides, we had a Democrat for President then.

You don't honestly believe the Republicans are good for the economy do you? I mean I certainly don't believe the Democrats are that great but they do a better job then the GOP as history shows.

 

[xsited1]

Republicans have had control of congress up until 2006.

Besides, we had a Democrat for President then.

You don't honestly believe the Republicans are good for the economy do you? I mean I certainly don't believe the Democrats are that great but they do a better job then the GOP as history shows.

I was talking about 1994-2001 when the President was a Democrat and Congress was Republican. Since the end of 2006, we've had the reverse with disasterous results. What's the difference?

 

[Modbert]

I was talking about 1994-2001 when the President was a Democrat and Congress was Republican. Since the end of 2006, we've had the reverse with disasterous results. What's the difference?

The difference between the two congresses you mean?

 

[sealybobo]

Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the economy has gone downhill. What's up with that?

You are kidding, right?

Do you think America put the Democrats in power because things were hunky dorey?

I've been warning people like you this was coming for 6 years now. The Republicans denied anything was wrong as recently as January 2008.

So you should ask yourself, "why the fuck didn't the GOP even know the economy was tanking"?

We told them not to deregulate the mortgage and financial industries but they did it anyways. The housing crash happened, partially, because we spent so much in Iraq that the value of the dollar went down the the Federal Reserve had to fuck with interest rates and bail banks out so all those adjustable loans went up, blabla.

It would take a book to explain it all in detail. And from your question, I assume the answer would go right over your head. LOL.

And I refuse to "prove" anything to you people anymore. You are all adults. You have have the google. You can all read for yourselves. Don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer. LOL.

 

[Silence]

Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the economy has gone downhill. What's up with that?

I do so enjoy the laugh it gives me everytime someone pulls this bullshit claim out of their ass.

you do realize that the Democrats only control the Congress in name only.... they don't have enough seats to end the filibusters the Republicans continue to intitiate. Add to that the promise of veto from Bush and yeah, it's cool to blame the dems but the reality is this economy got in the shitter when the Repubs were in control and the spend, spend and more spend policies of Bush got out of control.

here's a pretty picture for you to enjoy

here's another one you might like

I love pretty pictures...don't you?

 

[Modbert]

I do so enjoy the laugh it gives me everytime someone pulls this bullshit claim out of their ass.

you do realize that the Democrats only control the Congress in name only.... they don't have enough seats to end the filibusters the Republicans continue to intitiate. Add to that the promise of veto from Bush and yeah, it's cool to blame the dems but the reality is this economy got in the shitter when the Repubs were in control and the spend, spend and more spend policies of Bush got out of control.

here's a pretty picture for you to enjoy

here's another one you might like

I love pretty pictures...don't you?

I have to remind myself next time I can give you rep to give you some first thing Silence.

 

[xsited1]

The difference between the two congresses you mean?

Yes. You said "Republicans can still stonewall any vote in the Senate. Plus Dubya has veto power and the Democrats rarely have the chance to override it." Wasn't that the case with Clinton between 1994 and 2001 in reverse?

104th Congress: 230 (R) 204 (D) 1 (I), 54 (R) 46 (D)
105th Congress: 228 (R) 206 (D) 1 (I), 55 (R) 45 (D)
106th Congress: 223 (R) 211 (D) 1 (I), 54 (R) 46 (D)

110th Congress: 202 (R) 233 (D) , 49 (R) 49 (D) 2 (I)

 

[xsited1]

I do so enjoy the laugh it gives me everytime someone pulls this bullshit claim out of their ass.

you do realize that the Democrats only control the Congress in name only.... they don't have enough seats to end the filibusters the Republicans continue to intitiate. Add to that the promise of veto from Bush and yeah, it's cool to blame the dems but the reality is this economy got in the shitter when the Repubs were in control and the spend, spend and more spend policies of Bush got out of control.

It's been awhile, but I thought the Republicans were up against the same thing between 1994-2001.

 

[xsited1]

You are kidding, right?

Do you think America put the Democrats in power because things were hunky dorey?

I've been warning people like you this was coming for 6 years now. The Republicans denied anything was wrong as recently as January 2008.

So you should ask yourself, "why the fuck didn't the GOP even know the economy was tanking"?

We told them not to deregulate the mortgage and financial industries but they did it anyways. The housing crash happened, partially, because we spent so much in Iraq that the value of the dollar went down the the Federal Reserve had to fuck with interest rates and bail banks out so all those adjustable loans went up, blabla.

It would take a book to explain it all in detail. And from your question, I assume the answer would go right over your head. LOL.

And I refuse to "prove" anything to you people anymore. You are all adults. You have have the google. You can all read for yourselves. Don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer. LOL.

My, you have a dirty mouth. Yes, I've been warning people since 2000 that there would be problems starting in 2001. Obviously, Bush's enormous spending has caused problems, but don't you mean that regulating the markets caused the problems rather than deregulating the markets?

 

[Silence]

It's been awhile, but I thought the Republicans were up against the same thing between 1994-2001.

perhaps they were...the difference being the Republicans were actually too busy trying to prove Clinton got a blow job to actually care about the economy....

here is something of interest I found (I love google)

Bush didn't veto even one bill in the first five years of his presidency
Bush makes history - a five-year streak without saying 'no' | csmonitor.com

but he began vetoing things when the Dems took office

Bush vetoes domestic spending bill on health, education and jobs - International Herald Tribune



President Bush Rejects Artificial Deadline, Vetoes Iraq War Supplemental

President George Bush vetoes Congress ban on CIA use of waterboarding - Times Online

I especialy like that one

President Bush has vetoed a law preventing the CIA using interrogation techniques condemned by many as torture, because it “would take away one of the most valuable tools in the War on Terror”.

 

[Alpha1]

The Democrat Math On Republican Filibusters: February 29, 2008= 72 Vs April 15, 2008= 65 | Right Voices

2/29/2008
Harry Reid claims 72 Republican filibusters

3/6/2008
Democrats claim 73 Republican filibusters

4/15/2008
Democrats claim 65 Republican filibusters

When Democrats block judicial nominations, Reid and Schumer count it as a Republican filibuster.

If Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, filibusters the FISA reform bill, Reid and Schumer count that as a Republican filibuster.

If Democrats vote unanimously or near-unanimously with the Republicans to uphold a filibuster and beat a bill, as has happened on almost a dozen occasions, that counts as a Republican filibuster.

The Dims lie so often about so many issues I'm beginning to
lose track....

 

[xsited1]

perhaps they were...the difference being the Republicans were actually too busy trying to prove Clinton got a blow job to actually care about the economy....

Congress approves the budget. So a do-nothing Congress is better?

 

[AllieBaba]

Don't dazzle them with paltry facts.

 

[xsited1]

The Democrat Math On Republican Filibusters: February 29, 2008= 72 Vs April 15, 2008= 65 | Right Voices[/url]

2/29/2008
Harry Reid claims 72 Republican filibusters

3/6/2008
Democrats claim 73 Republican filibusters

4/15/2008
Democrats claim 65 Republican filibusters

When Democrats block judicial nominations, Reid and Schumer count it as a Republican filibuster.

If Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, filibusters the FISA reform bill, Reid and Schumer count that as a Republican filibuster.

If Democrats vote unanimously or near-unanimously with the Republicans to uphold a filibuster and beat a bill, as has happened on almost a dozen occasions, that counts as a Republican filibuster.

The Dims lie so often about so many issues I'm beginning to
lose track....