Republicans have become the best in the world at “Political Houdini”

[wihosa]

The reason the debt ballooned under President Obama is because he put the expenditures for the wars on budget, presto chango we have a huge deficit.

As for why the cost of the war has been quoted any where from 1 to 2 trillion is that some people are talking about what has actually been spent (President Obama quoted 750 billion spent in Iraq, no mention of Afghanistan) and what has been incurred, benifits to be paid to those who bore the brunt of Bush's folly, our service personnel. We'll be paying for them for the rest of their maimed lives.

Since you Obama haters want to make a big deal about inaccurate numbers, how about the war mongers promising that the Iraq war would "only" cost 25 to 50 billion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm, actually, jobs have been added to the economy every month for the last 8 months.

In what world is that?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "prediction"? Back it 2007, it was predicted that the jobless rate could hit 10% regardless of what we did.

Umm, actually, the prediction was that it would reach 10% without the stimulus, and never pass 8% if it passed. Now they are trying to claim that it would have been 16% without the stimulus, which makes even your claim look intelligent.

Jobs were hemorrhaging from the economy at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH when Bush left office and the DOW was 4,000 points less than the 10,000 it is now and 5,000 less than when Bush took office.

And?

As far as Democrats controlling congress, the Senate was 49 to 49 and with the presidential veto, not a single piece of significant legislation was passed during the last two years Bush was in office. Everything that happened to the economy came from Republican policies. No way around that one. It was simply too recent to forget or rewrite the history.

More proof you live in a different world than the rest of us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/washington/15cnd-farm.html

 

[wihosa]

I love how the RepubliCONs expect so much of Dems. Just because we are smarter than the RepubliCONs they expect us to predict the future with perfection. "Why the hell is unemployment at 10% when you said it would only be 8%!?!?"

What would you righties have done? NOTHING is the answer and we would be experiencing the second great depression.

The fact is the economy was going over a cliff when President Obama came in and now for the past year we have had poisitve economic growth and positive job growth since the beginning of this year, WITHOUT any help from the RepubliCONs!

They have stood on the sidelines and attempted to trip up our President at every turn, hoping for failure all the time. History will judge them as the dis-loyal opposition.

 

[rdean]

Umm, actually, jobs have been added to the economy every month for the last 8 months.

In what world is that?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "prediction"? Back it 2007, it was predicted that the jobless rate could hit 10% regardless of what we did.

Umm, actually, the prediction was that it would reach 10% without the stimulus, and never pass 8% if it passed. Now they are trying to claim that it would have been 16% without the stimulus, which makes even your claim look intelligent.

Jobs were hemorrhaging from the economy at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH when Bush left office and the DOW was 4,000 points less than the 10,000 it is now and 5,000 less than when Bush took office.

And?

As far as Democrats controlling congress, the Senate was 49 to 49 and with the presidential veto, not a single piece of significant legislation was passed during the last two years Bush was in office. Everything that happened to the economy came from Republican policies. No way around that one. It was simply too recent to forget or rewrite the history.

More proof you live in a different world than the rest of us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/washington/15cnd-farm.html

Let me make sure I understand this. You point to a 300 billion over 5 years "FARM BILL" that got 81 senators on board as proof that Democrats, who only had 49 senators, had so much "power"?????
With that kind of support from the Republicans, it was either a very good bill or it only benefited RED states. After all, IT WAS A FUCKING FARM BILL".

I like this part:

I say:

Jobs were hemorrhaging from the economy at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH when Bush left office and the DOW was 4,000 points less than the 10,000 it is now and 5,000 less than when Bush took office.

Then you say:

And?

Like, "so what? Ho hum, no big deal".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm, actually, jobs have been added to the economy every month for the last 8 months.

In what world is that?



Umm, actually, the prediction was that it would reach 10% without the stimulus, and never pass 8% if it passed. Now they are trying to claim that it would have been 16% without the stimulus, which makes even your claim look intelligent.



And?

As far as Democrats controlling congress, the Senate was 49 to 49 and with the presidential veto, not a single piece of significant legislation was passed during the last two years Bush was in office. Everything that happened to the economy came from Republican policies. No way around that one. It was simply too recent to forget or rewrite the history.

More proof you live in a different world than the rest of us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/washington/15cnd-farm.html

Let me make sure I understand this. You point to a 300 billion over 5 years "FARM BILL" that got 81 senators on board as proof that Democrats, who only had 49 senators, had so much "power"?????
With that kind of support from the Republicans, it was either a very good bill or it only benefited RED states. After all, IT WAS A FUCKING FARM BILL".

I like this part:

I say:

Jobs were hemorrhaging from the economy at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH when Bush left office and the DOW was 4,000 points less than the 10,000 it is now and 5,000 less than when Bush took office.

Then you say:

And?

Like, "so what? Ho hum, no big deal".

No, this is simply proof that at least one major bill passed during the period you claim none did. Unlike you, I made no claims about Democrats or Republicans, nor did I comment about jobs. I did systematically refute all of your points, including the last one, which left you nothing to do but try to claim I failed to prove something I did not even try to prove.

I said and to the other claim because I was, and still am, confused exactly how it proves your point. How does the fact that this was happening under Bush prove that the predictions about the economy if the stimulus had not passed would have been worse than was actually predicted?

In other words, why do you keep talking about Bush when people challenge you about Obama. Is it because you know that Obama is so bad that the only chance you have of making him look good is by comparing him to someone you think is worse?

 

[rdean]

In what world is that?



Umm, actually, the prediction was that it would reach 10% without the stimulus, and never pass 8% if it passed. Now they are trying to claim that it would have been 16% without the stimulus, which makes even your claim look intelligent.



And?



More proof you live in a different world than the rest of us.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/washington/15cnd-farm.html

Let me make sure I understand this. You point to a 300 billion over 5 years "FARM BILL" that got 81 senators on board as proof that Democrats, who only had 49 senators, had so much "power"?????
With that kind of support from the Republicans, it was either a very good bill or it only benefited RED states. After all, IT WAS A FUCKING FARM BILL".

I like this part:

I say:

Jobs were hemorrhaging from the economy at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH when Bush left office and the DOW was 4,000 points less than the 10,000 it is now and 5,000 less than when Bush took office.

Then you say:

And?

Like, "so what? Ho hum, no big deal".

No, this is simply proof that at least one major bill passed during the period you claim none did. Unlike you, I made no claims about Democrats or Republicans, nor did I comment about jobs. I did systematically refute all of your points, including the last one, which left you nothing to do but try to claim I failed to prove something I did not even try to prove.

I said and to the other claim because I was, and still am, confused exactly how it proves your point. How does the fact that this was happening under Bush prove that the predictions about the economy if the stimulus had not passed would have been worse than was actually predicted?

In other words, why do you keep talking about Bush when people challenge you about Obama. Is it because you know that Obama is so bad that the only chance you have of making him look good is by comparing him to someone you think is worse?

Two things, I never said, "Major bill". I said, "not a single piece of significant legislation".

You can get bipartisan support on something non-controversial as long as it doesn't cost a trillion dollars.

Significant legislation is like the Republican drug bill that was passed through reconciliation and cost the country anywhere from 1.3 to 5 trillion dollars without any type of offset.

Or the Bush tax cuts that remove 2.4 trillion dollars from government coffers and was supposed to create a "sterling" economy. How'd that work out?

Please don't quote me unless you actually quote me. I'm tired of my words being edited and twisted. I know you guys are good at that. Much better than Democrats, but I think it's against the rules.

 

[code1211]

Rdean you have yet to tell us why 5.7 trillion in 8 years was horrible but 3 trillion in 2 years is a GOOD thing?

I explained that before but since you asked "again", I'll explain "again". Guess the first couple of times didn't "take".

Bush and the Republicans inherited a "surplus". The economy may have been in a very mild recession. But by time Obama inherited the economy, it's was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH. The Dow had dropped from 11,000 when Bush took office to 6,000, that's 4,000 LESS that what it is today.

If the 2.4 trillion dollar tax cuts worked they way they were supposed to, why is our economy such a disaster? That's the most obvious question.

It took 8 years for Republican policies to wreck the economy. You can't turn it around overnight. But Obama is succeeding, even with Republicans attempting to stop him at every turn. So far, the Republicans are winning. But after what they have already done, can America afford their bill?

I hope I helped you to understand the facts. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

So, to re-cap:

Bush employed deficit spending at the rate of about 200 billion per year pumping money out of the treasury and into the coffers of those he liked.

Then Obama came into office and employed deficit spending at the rate of 1000 billion per year pumping money out of the treasury and into the coffers of those he liked.

Seems to me the only difference is the scale. What is your bitch about the differences?

 

[kyzr]

Rdean you have yet to tell us why 5.7 trillion in 8 years was horrible but 3 trillion in 2 years is a GOOD thing?

I explained that before but since you asked "again", I'll explain "again". Guess the first couple of times didn't "take".

Bush and the Republicans inherited a "surplus". The economy may have been in a very mild recession. But by time Obama inherited the economy, it's was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH. The Dow had dropped from 11,000 when Bush took office to 6,000, that's 4,000 LESS that what it is today.

If the 2.4 trillion dollar tax cuts worked they way they were supposed to, why is our economy such a disaster? That's the most obvious question.

It took 8 years for Republican policies to wreck the economy. You can't turn it around overnight. But Obama is succeeding, even with Republicans attempting to stop him at every turn. So far, the Republicans are winning. But after what they have already done, can America afford their bill?

I hope I helped you to understand the facts. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

So, to re-cap:
Bush employed deficit spending at the rate of about 200 billion per year pumping money out of the treasury and into the coffers of those he liked.

Then Obama came into office and employed deficit spending at the rate of 1000 billion per year pumping money out of the treasury and into the coffers of those he liked.

Seems to me the only difference is the scale. What is your bitch about the differences?

The differences are: Bush cut taxes when he didn't need to, and then outsourced good paying jobs via the "American Jobs Creation Act", and then failed to manage Fannie & Freddie and Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act mess. The economy collapsed after the GOP's mis-management. Not a good thing on their resume'.

Enter Obama: The dems helped create the financial mess with the Community Reinvestment Act, Obama actually got the most money for protecting Fannie & Freddie, along with Barney Frank. After they brought the economy down, they blamed the GOP (the same way the GOP now blames the Dems) so the dems triple the Debt and display zero real-world skills at fixing the economy. Saying things like "energy prices necessarily need to skyrocket" is not how to get re-elected.

 

[Truthmatters]

hahahahahahahah

The numbers do not back your assertions

 

[Truthmatters]

CHART OF THE DAY: It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs

 

[kyzr]

hahahahahahahah

The numbers do not back your assertions

HA yourself.

The numbers do back-up my assertions. I await your link showing otherwise.
America's National Debt Tops $13 Trillion - Forecasts & Trends - InvestorsInsight.com | Financial Intelligence, Advice & Research / Investment Strategies & Planning for Individual Investors.

I'm not sure if these numbers have Obamacare included or not, or if UHC projections could even be estimated with meaningful accuracy.

IMHO Obama needs to create the "wealth effect" by doing something like prohibiting the short-sale of stock, which would create wealth in the stock market. If not that, then some other way of getting money to people w/o borrowing or raising the Debt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me make sure I understand this. You point to a 300 billion over 5 years "FARM BILL" that got 81 senators on board as proof that Democrats, who only had 49 senators, had so much "power"?????
With that kind of support from the Republicans, it was either a very good bill or it only benefited RED states. After all, IT WAS A FUCKING FARM BILL".

I like this part:

I say:

Jobs were hemorrhaging from the economy at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH when Bush left office and the DOW was 4,000 points less than the 10,000 it is now and 5,000 less than when Bush took office.

Then you say:

And?

Like, "so what? Ho hum, no big deal".

No, this is simply proof that at least one major bill passed during the period you claim none did. Unlike you, I made no claims about Democrats or Republicans, nor did I comment about jobs. I did systematically refute all of your points, including the last one, which left you nothing to do but try to claim I failed to prove something I did not even try to prove.

I said and to the other claim because I was, and still am, confused exactly how it proves your point. How does the fact that this was happening under Bush prove that the predictions about the economy if the stimulus had not passed would have been worse than was actually predicted?

In other words, why do you keep talking about Bush when people challenge you about Obama. Is it because you know that Obama is so bad that the only chance you have of making him look good is by comparing him to someone you think is worse?

Two things, I never said, "Major bill". I said, "not a single piece of significant legislation".

You can get bipartisan support on something non-controversial as long as it doesn't cost a trillion dollars.

Significant legislation is like the Republican drug bill that was passed through reconciliation and cost the country anywhere from 1.3 to 5 trillion dollars without any type of offset.

Or the Bush tax cuts that remove 2.4 trillion dollars from government coffers and was supposed to create a "sterling" economy. How'd that work out?

Please don't quote me unless you actually quote me. I'm tired of my words being edited and twisted. I know you guys are good at that. Much better than Democrats, but I think it's against the rules.

Was the Farm Bill, or was it not, significant? If not, why not?

Forgive me for assuming that you understand English, and would understand that significant and major both have the same meaning when we are talking about bills. Is a bill only significant if the Republicans pass it? If it is, and you are trying to claim that no significant bill passed while also claiming the Democrats were powerless, you are going to look even dumber than you do now.

Please, educate me on how your mind works, mysteries that seem to contradict the laws of nature always fascinate me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rdean you have yet to tell us why 5.7 trillion in 8 years was horrible but 3 trillion in 2 years is a GOOD thing?

I explained that before but since you asked "again", I'll explain "again". Guess the first couple of times didn't "take".

Bush and the Republicans inherited a "surplus". The economy may have been in a very mild recession. But by time Obama inherited the economy, it's was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 750,000 a MONTH. The Dow had dropped from 11,000 when Bush took office to 6,000, that's 4,000 LESS that what it is today.

If the 2.4 trillion dollar tax cuts worked they way they were supposed to, why is our economy such a disaster? That's the most obvious question.

It took 8 years for Republican policies to wreck the economy. You can't turn it around overnight. But Obama is succeeding, even with Republicans attempting to stop him at every turn. So far, the Republicans are winning. But after what they have already done, can America afford their bill?

I hope I helped you to understand the facts. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

So, to re-cap:

Bush employed deficit spending at the rate of about 200 billion per year pumping money out of the treasury and into the coffers of those he liked.

Then Obama came into office and employed deficit spending at the rate of 1000 billion per year pumping money out of the treasury and into the coffers of those he liked.

Seems to me the only difference is the scale. What is your bitch about the differences?

Bush was evil, and Obama is a genius, and that makes the difference that Bush was evil, and Obama is smarter than you, so you just don't get it.

Or something like that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CHART OF THE DAY: It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs

Do you even realize that this site is mocking this chart?

Numbers don't lie, do they? In the last year of the Bush administration, the monthly job loss numbers built steadily to a peak which then began to reverse itself during Obama's first year.
It's a perfect mirror image, as this chart from Nancy Pelosi's office demonstrates.
Now, whether this was the result of Obama's and Bush's policies... or whether it's just a matter of timing, is obviously open for debate.
We know what Speaker Pelosi would have you believe.

Let me translate that for the sarcasm impaired.

Don't you love it when Congress uses numbers to prove something, totally unaware that they do not prove anything?
Bush had the bad luck to be president when our economy was tanking, and his last year in office saw job loss increase on a monthly basis, and peak just as he left office. Obama then had the good luck to start in office just as the whole got as deep as it was going to, and job losses started to increase.
The chart clearly indicates that this was simply a matter of timing, because the improvement actually began before any new policies had any chance to affect anything.
Any honest person looking at this chart would understand this, and acknowledge that good timing had as much, if not more, impact than new policies. Yet Speaker Pelosi wants us to look at this chart and fall down in awe because it is clear the Democrats are doing a much better job than the Republicans did.

​

And you, being the unthinking Obamazombie you are, ate this up and regurgitate it as proof that you are right. Unfortunately for your reputation (which is pretty bad even without this) you did not make the extra effort to look at the site and discern what it was saying about this chart in particular, and about charts in general. You would have been much better off linking directly to Pelosi's version of the chart, at least it would not have come with the built in negative commentary.