Ok, GOP, Where are the Jobs?

[Wry Catcher]

6 fucking years the GOP had COMPLETE control and what happened....Recession. Good job GOP, the only thing you're good at is finding more and more reasons why it aint your fault and it's EVERYONE elses

4 years of Democrat controlled Congress and 2 years of Obama and what have we got. Not better, and much worse Debt and Deficit problems.

It seems Charles_ is one of the brain dead.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For others not brain dead, please consider. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House from 2001 until 2007; they controlled the Congress from 1995 until 2007. At the time the Democrats won the house in 2007, we had accumulated a huge foreign debt largely based on the war in Iraq being fought off budget.
During the GOP control the cost of healthcare rose double-digits each year, regulation of industry basically stopped and before the election of 2008 we were at the brink of economic collapse.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why are you asking the party thats not in power ......at the moment?
And like Avatar said....the gov doesnt create jobs anyway.

Which party is out of power??

The Dems control the Senate and the WH. The Reps control the House.

Looks like the Dems have major control to me. They don't have to pass anything that the House sends them. If the do the Prez can veto. Looks to me like the Dems still have most of the power.

The Govt doesn't create jobs but it can create a friendly business environment to assist in jo

What part do you not understand? He asked why the GOP wasnt creating jobs.
I asked him why he would ask that of the party who is not in power.
I fail to see where you got the idea that I was implying the GOP was in controll.
And yes the gov can create a bussiness friendly enviroment by getting the hell out of the way.

 

[ClosedCaption]

6 fucking years the GOP had COMPLETE control and what happened....Recession. Good job GOP, the only thing you're good at is finding more and more reasons why it aint your fault and it's EVERYONE elses

4 years of Democrat controlled Congress and 2 years of Obama and what have we got. Not better, and much worse Debt and Deficit problems.

You guys have spent the last 4 years blaming Bush and claiming that despite the fact that you controlled Both houses of congress for the last 4 years. None of this is your fault. Now after republicans take control of one house a couple month ago. You want to tell people it is the GOP houses fault things have not got better over night.

Classic. Ridicules but classic.

Why did the 6 years of COMPLETE CONTROL over ALL BRANCHES by the GOP result in a recession? 6 whole years of COMPLETE CONTROL and you're bitchin about 4?

looks like you dont hold the GOP to the same standard you hold up to everyone else

 

[boedicca]

For others not brain dead, please consider. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House from 2001 until 2007; they controlled the Congress from 1995 until 2007. At the time the Democrats won the house in 2007, we had accumulated a huge foreign debt largely based on the war in Iraq being fought off budget.
During the GOP control the cost of healthcare rose double-digits each year, regulation of industry basically stopped and before the election of 2008 we were at the brink of economic collapse.

You are historically ignorant.

The Senate was controlled by the Dems from 2001-2002. Bush had four years with GOP control of the both Houses (2003 -2006). After taking a big hit after 9/11 (2002 GDP growth was only .3%), the economy started growing and generating jobs - and the deficit shrank. Bush's 2007 deficit was about the same as the Obama February 2011 deficit.

Spending is our problem. Once the Dems got control of both houses and the Presidency, they binge spent us into a financial crisis.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why did the 6 years of COMPLETE CONTROL over ALL BRANCHES by the GOP result in a recession? 6 whole years of COMPLETE CONTROL and you're bitchin about 4?

looks like you dont hold the GOP to the same standard you hold up to everyone else

It didn't result in the recession. The recession started after the Democrats took control.

But then we have had 50+ years of bad, big government policies, the consequences of which are still ongoing and we haven't hit bottom yet. But there are too many fools ensuring that we will.

And the past 4 years have been pretty screwed up. More than enough blame on both sides for that though.

 

[kiwiman127]

Wow, those Dems wasted no time, huh? They got elected, and immediately afterwards, the economy tanked. Could you please point out specific Democratic legislation that caused the economy to tank immediately after Dems took control of Congress?

Upon taking control of the government, the Democrats immediately raised the minimum wage, artificially increasing the cost of labor. The higher labor costs, the slower the economic growth.

However, the economy really began to tank in 2008 during the financial crisis and, oddly enough, when it becamse obvious that Barack Obama was going to win the White House.

Amazing coincidence, no?

The above post belongs in one of the Class Warfare threads.
If Avatar had his way, the working class would be working for pennies.
As I have factually repeatedly pointed out, wages for the working class have been flat since the 80s despite very good worker productivity and good profits. And I'd guess that good news to the likes of Avatar.
So, the two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending and as the flat wage trend continues, the US consumer driven economy becomes more and more in jeopardy. The reason is that the working class has less and less expendable income to contribute to the consumer driven economy.
My last questions for Avatar is, why do you hate the working class? Why do you hate our capitalistic consumer driven economy? Do you have ideas for a better economic system to replace the current model? Do you have children or grandchildren who will be forced to work for low paying jobs and if you do, why do you want to hurt their futures?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why did the 6 years of COMPLETE CONTROL over ALL BRANCHES by the GOP result in a recession? 6 whole years of COMPLETE CONTROL and you're bitchin about 4?

looks like you dont hold the GOP to the same standard you hold up to everyone else

It didn't result in the recession. The recession started after the Democrats took control.
But then we have had 50+ years of bad, big government policies, the consequences of which are still ongoing and we haven't hit bottom yet. But there are too many fools ensuring that we will.

And the past 4 years have been pretty screwed up. More than enough blame on both sides for that though.

Now are you purposefully leaving out or you dont know that the recession started 2 months after dems took control. So either you are suggesting that the dems caused it after 2 months or you're ommitting that fact to create a false narrative. Which one is it?

The Party of Resposibility takes responsibilty for NOTHING. They were in complete control and produced a recession...not their fault...it's 9/11's fault...and Tsunami's....Terrorist....Democrats....Al Gore!! Clinton! Its everything BUT their fault

 

[ba1614]

6 fucking years the GOP had COMPLETE control and what happened....Recession. Good job GOP, the only thing you're good at is finding more and more reasons why it aint your fault and it's EVERYONE elses

4 years of Democrat controlled Congress and 2 years of Obama and what have we got. Not better, and much worse Debt and Deficit problems.

You must've missed it too Charles! They have a site now to keep you abreast of how awesome the obama is, the Obama Achievements Center

 

[kiwiman127]

Why did the 6 years of COMPLETE CONTROL over ALL BRANCHES by the GOP result in a recession? 6 whole years of COMPLETE CONTROL and you're bitchin about 4?

looks like you dont hold the GOP to the same standard you hold up to everyone else

It didn't result in the recession. The recession started after the Democrats took control.
But then we have had 50+ years of bad, big government policies, the consequences of which are still ongoing and we haven't hit bottom yet. But there are too many fools ensuring that we will.

And the past 4 years have been pretty screwed up. More than enough blame on both sides for that though.

Now are you purposefully leaving out or you dont know that the recession started 2 months after dems took control. So either you are suggesting that the dems caused it after 2 months or you're ommitting that fact to create a false narrative. Which one is it?

The Party of Resposibility takes responsibilty for NOTHING. They were in complete control and produced a recession...not their fault...it's 9/11's fault...and Tsunami's....Terrorist....Democrats....Al Gore!! Clinton! Its everything BUT their fault

It's a fact that recessions aren't official until after there has been two straight quarters of no growth. Two quarters equal 6 months. It's that simple, but not to partisan hacks. They hate facts.
The fact of the matter is that BOTH Dems and Repugs have contributed big time to much to what is wrong in America.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

First off. That's a blatantly lie. second. Who the fuck are you to tell anyone to shut up? ohh, you must be a union thug and think you controll freedom of speech.

Well that explains all the free time you have to work on being this fucking dumb.

Really? That's a lie? Can you prove it? If not unions, who was responsible for the minimum wage, safety rules, 8 hour work days, overtime? Republicans? Private business? Now it's your turn to sit down and shut the fuck up.

By the way, ass-stain, I don't belong to a union, but I support them. Now that you can't attack me on that, do you have a legitimate criticism, or just more right-wing propaganda talking points?

And what's your excuse for wasting time on here? Do you have time off between sucking cocks? Don't lose out on any money because of me. You should give as many $2 head jobs as you can. Get to work, pussy, money doesn't grow on trees.

Are you the wicked witch the melted?

Every awesome thing you claim unions brought is like saying Al Capone was a great man for Chicago. He brought jobs, money, made sure orphanes had good milk and that the whores knew who Big Daddy was.

What they did 50 years ago is not what they are doing now. The are cruel to the private sector, they demand more while the rest have to make due with less.

Keep practicing, you are almost the dumbest person I know.

WAIT

I take that back, the dumbest person I was thinking of was a potting soil.

grats, you win.

Hey, cock-face, you just admitted that unions brought about positive change in working conditions. So why are you arguing otherwise? Dishonesty? Stupidity? I'm guessing a little bit of both. Looks like the dumbest person you know is yourself. stupid motherfucker.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Really? That's a lie? Can you prove it? If not unions, who was responsible for the minimum wage, safety rules, 8 hour work days, overtime? Republicans? Private business? Now it's your turn to sit down and shut the fuck up.

By the way, ass-stain, I don't belong to a union, but I support them. Now that you can't attack me on that, do you have a legitimate criticism, or just more right-wing propaganda talking points?

And what's your excuse for wasting time on here? Do you have time off between sucking cocks? Don't lose out on any money because of me. You should give as many $2 head jobs as you can. Get to work, pussy, money doesn't grow on trees.

Are you the wicked witch the melted?

Every awesome thing you claim unions brought is like saying Al Capone was a great man for Chicago. He brought jobs, money, made sure orphanes had good milk and that the whores knew who Big Daddy was.

What they did 50 years ago is not what they are doing now. The are cruel to the private sector, they demand more while the rest have to make due with less.

Keep practicing, you are almost the dumbest person I know.

WAIT

I take that back, the dumbest person I was thinking of was a potting soil.

grats, you win.

Hey, cock-face, you just admitted that unions brought about positive change in working conditions. So why are you arguing otherwise? Dishonesty? Stupidity? I'm guessing a little bit of both. Looks like the dumbest person you know is yourself. stupid motherfucker.

Who is reading these posts to you? Seriously, who ever is helping you needs to get fired.

Sure the unions did help, 50 years ago.

now they are a cancer eating the host body.

"Looks like the dumbest person you know is yourself." That was clever. who wrote that for you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Amazing how these repubs are so arrogant as to say when things are and are not needed for everyone. They say "we don't need unions" like their word is all it takes to be true.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

Are you the wicked witch the melted?

Every awesome thing you claim unions brought is like saying Al Capone was a great man for Chicago. He brought jobs, money, made sure orphanes had good milk and that the whores knew who Big Daddy was.

What they did 50 years ago is not what they are doing now. The are cruel to the private sector, they demand more while the rest have to make due with less.

Keep practicing, you are almost the dumbest person I know.

WAIT

I take that back, the dumbest person I was thinking of was a potting soil.

grats, you win.

Hey, cock-face, you just admitted that unions brought about positive change in working conditions. So why are you arguing otherwise? Dishonesty? Stupidity? I'm guessing a little bit of both. Looks like the dumbest person you know is yourself. stupid motherfucker.

Who is reading these posts to you? Seriously, who ever is helping you needs to get fired.

Sure the unions did help, 50 years ago.

now they are a cancer eating the host body.

"Looks like the dumbest person you know is yourself." That was clever. who wrote that for you?

So then why are you arguing otherwise? Are you just a liar? Remember, scrotum-track, this was the argument:

Unions made the middle-class possible.

That's a blatantly lie.

Then, after a few more moronic posts, you admitted that you basically agreed with me when I gave unions credit for worker's rights. So then, the question begs to be asked: Why did you argue otherwise? Are you a liar, stupid, or both? Again, I'm leaning towards a little bit of both. But it wouldn't take much to convince me that you're just stupid.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Hey, cock-face, you just admitted that unions brought about positive change in working conditions. So why are you arguing otherwise? Dishonesty? Stupidity? I'm guessing a little bit of both. Looks like the dumbest person you know is yourself. stupid motherfucker.

Who is reading these posts to you? Seriously, who ever is helping you needs to get fired.

Sure the unions did help, 50 years ago.

now they are a cancer eating the host body.

"Looks like the dumbest person you know is yourself." That was clever. who wrote that for you?

So then why are you arguing otherwise? Are you just a liar? Remember, scrotum-track, this was the argument:

Unions made the middle-class possible.

That's a blatantly lie.

Then, after a few more moronic posts, you admitted that you basically agreed with me when I gave unions credit for worker's rights. So then, the question begs to be asked: Why did you argue otherwise? Are you a liar, stupid, or both? Again, I'm leaning towards a little bit of both. But it wouldn't take much to convince me that you're just stupid.

Unions did not create the middle class. You have been told that by more people than just me. Hell anyone with an IQ would tell you that.

So yes, you lied and you are an idiot.

My basis was that the union did do good work but is now utterly corrupt.

I know you can't understand that, since you are the dirt the smarter potted plant lives on. So I will leave you to your gay fantasies.

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

Who is reading these posts to you? Seriously, who ever is helping you needs to get fired.

Sure the unions did help, 50 years ago.

now they are a cancer eating the host body.

"Looks like the dumbest person you know is yourself." That was clever. who wrote that for you?

So then why are you arguing otherwise? Are you just a liar? Remember, scrotum-track, this was the argument:

That's a blatantly lie.

Then, after a few more moronic posts, you admitted that you basically agreed with me when I gave unions credit for worker's rights. So then, the question begs to be asked: Why did you argue otherwise? Are you a liar, stupid, or both? Again, I'm leaning towards a little bit of both. But it wouldn't take much to convince me that you're just stupid.

Unions did not create the middle class. You have been told that by more people than just me. Hell anyone with an IQ would tell you that.

So yes, you lied and you are an idiot.

My basis was that the union did do good work but is now utterly corrupt.

I know you can't understand that, since you are the dirt the smarter potted plant lives on. So I will leave you to your gay fantasies.

Oh, I'm lying again. You just agreed with me, and now I'm a liar. You're not too consistent.

Yeah, a few other dumb asses have tried making the argument that unions didn't contribute to the middle-class. They were wrong. You are wrong. Without the contributions unions have made to the lives of the working-class, the middle-class would not exist. Pensions, retirement, minimum wage, labor laws. All of that was possible because of unions.

Bye bye, ass-stain. You lose.