Is the GOP intentionally preventing a recovery?

[Synthaholic]

Nice math.

Unless you want to tell me how going from:

Stock Market Closing Prices - 1/20/09

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 7949.09

Stock Market Closing Prices - 6/29/11

Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) Close - 12261.42

is somehow double.

It went from 14,279.96 on Thursday, October 11, 2007 to 6,443 on Friday, March 6, 2009. That was about 6 weeks after Obama took office, and before any of his policies took effect. 12,261 is nearly double 6,443.

And you should be quite proud of your insinuations that our soldiers under Bush's leadership were complacent in hunting down OBL.

Soldiers don't make up their own orders and missions. Bush didn't put a priority on killing bin Laden. First he let al Qaeda attack America, then he let bin Laden escape to gin up his revenge war against Saddam.

Hack. You don't get to pick numbers out of your ass. Your contention was that HE doubled the DOW, which is patently wrong.

Keep spinning.




Right, Bush LET OBL attack us. It was a grand plan from the mastermind.

It doubled during his term - in only 2.5 years!

Sorry that reality is kicking your ass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

uh huh and who "abandoned" it, then who reconstituted it (twice) and promptly ignored it?

Bush and the Republicans let PAYGO expire.

you didn't answer the entire question which is par for the course so I'll give you part of it.............yes they did so the postulation that escapes you goes like this- they didn't bother to pretend to even want to adhere to it, they let it go.

Nancy however made a big show of re-enacting paygo in jan 07. and?

what happened next?

and-

for bonus points, what associated event occurred on On February 12, 2010?

Bush and the Republicans let PAYGO expire, mostly because Bush's budget busting tax cuts and Medicare part D couldn't pass under PAYGO rules.

 

[Susan45]

SSDI is managed by the Social Security Administration as is the 'retirement program' known as Social Security.

HAHAHAHAHA!! Your post is the perfect example of joining a discussion when it is almost over. We all know the SSDI is managed by SS. Like most threads this has meandered back and forth about SS and other subjects. But trajan tried to "get" me, but came up short. I wasn't going to bring it up, because I just didn't think it was important. But if he wants to back this up I am a little curious what he was talking about when he directed this at me.

I responded to this in your post:

Your ignorance is showing. SSDI is not part of the retirement program and you do not have to work to collect....

SSSI is part of the retirement program and is funded by FICA and and administered by the SSA.

Merely trying to inform you of the facts and make you think twice before calling someone ignorant.

Also, good job in explaining the line item veto time line and reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision.

LOL I see, I misunderstood what you were doing. I guess you are right since they are all administered by the SS administration. But they really are separate programs.

The Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability programs are the largest of several Federal programs that provide assistance to people with disabilities. While these two programs are different in many ways, both are administered by the Social Security Administration and only individuals who have a disability and meet medical criteria may qualify for benefits under either program.

Benefits for People with Disabilities

After dealing with a couple of people here, calling any of them ignorant was just self preservation. I much prefer honest dialogue and have expressed this a couple of time and was mocked for it. So, really, I don't feel a bit bad about using the ignorant word.

I wish they could find a way to use the line item veto, but I guess it would take a constitutional change and I don't have much hope that any of our critters have the backbone to try and change it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Soldiers don't make up their own orders and missions. Bush didn't put a priority on killing bin Laden. First he let al Qaeda attack America, then he let bin Laden escape to gin up his revenge war against Saddam.

Synth....he did not let AQ attack America......even if Clinton was still president at the time or Gore would have won......it still would have very likely happened.....the Security people who actually are the ones who do their damnedest to protect everyone were still the same people..... if your saying Bush said who gives a ****,then your saying they had the same attitude.....i dont buy that.....the only thing that was screwed about the Police agencies is they did not communicate to well among each other......which i hope has changed.....

I disagree. That memo in Aug. 2001 made it all the way to Condi Rice. If Gore had been allowed to take what he rightfully won, Richard Clarke would have been NSA, and would have taken that memo deadly seriously.

.

Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condoleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[6] from January 25, 2001, that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration.[7]

In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies.[8]
​

At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."[8]
Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".[8]


At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, a three-star general who was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration and stayed on into the Bush administration, wrote Hadley a classified two-page memo stating that the NSA needed to "pay attention to Al-Qaida and counterterrorism" and that the U.S. would be "struck again."
​

.


So, either these Bushies are the most incompetent morons to ever form an administration, or they let it happen. You decide.

 

[Synthaholic]

NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option

For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation.http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wendell-potter-says-fat-cats-are-winn

daveman will be along any time now to make fun of you for using anything associated in any way with the Huffington Post. Because he's honest and consistent.

Any time now....you watch....

Every time I kick your ass, you post a 3rd grade photoshop.

 

[Synthaholic]

If by "conservative" you mean Moronic Religious Christian Fundamentalists you are correct. They were bit players in the party until Bush II and Karl Rove actively recruited their participation in his daddy's run for POTUS. I despise those stupid *****. They ruined the GOP.

No, the GOP, by moving to the left, ruined the GOP.

We have one Democratic Party. We don't need two.

the Left?....i dont know Dave.....i think they have moved to far Right.....

Daveman was one of the biggest supporters of Bush that you could ever find on any forum. Any time you said anything negative about Bush, he was right there to defend him. I could point you to another board for all the evidence.

So don't let him bullshit you about being a 'proud conservative' or that the GOP isn't far enough to the Right. He's just a Republican toady, ready to support anyone with an 'R' next to their name.

 

[daveman]

If Gore had been allowed to take what he rightfully won...

 

[daveman]

daveman will be along any time now to make fun of you for using anything associated in any way with the Huffington Post. Because he's honest and consistent.

Any time now....you watch....

Every time I kick your ass, you post a 3rd grade photoshop.

Every time you look like a moron, you claim you kicked my ass. ;rofl:

 

[daveman]

Daveman was one of the biggest supporters of Bush that you could ever find on any forum. Any time you said anything negative about Bush, he was right there to defend him. I could point you to another board for all the evidence.

So don't let him bullshit you about being a 'proud conservative' or that the GOP isn't far enough to the Right. He's just a Republican toady, ready to support anyone with an 'R' next to their name.

See, now you're just flat-out lying. I criticized Bush constantly for not being conservative enough. He didn't veto enough crap legislation from the Dem-controlled Congress, he didn't do anything about illegal immigration, and he didn't prosecute the war aggressively enough. I've also criticized the GOP for being Dem-lite.

So, Synthia, now that your lie has been exposed, what are you going to do? Claim you kicked my ass again?

Retard.

 

[Synthaholic]

then why are your Democrats still spending like crazy?

Please list exactly how they are "still spending like crazy".

Thanks.

 

[Synthaholic]

the Left?....i dont know Dave.....i think they have moved to far Right.....

No, they've abandoned their conservative principles in favor of paying back special interest groups -- what the Democrats are all about.

thats what most Politicians are all about on both sides,paying back the Special Interest Groups......i see the Conservative Religious types having a lot of input about the GOP policies,to much as far as i am concerned.......to me thats going Right not Left.....where are the Moderate and Liberal Conservatives at?......on the other side....where are the Moderate and Conservative Democrats at?.....why are they allowing Rdean types to have so much input into their policies?.........

In Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, and whichever Dakota Dorgan is from.

 

[Synthaholic]

It's been offered a thousand times. Here, I'll repeat it for you one more time: cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulation.

I doubt it will penetrate your skull no matter how many times it's repeated.

Cut taxes?

Are you nuts? We have a trillion dollar deficit!

We have to cut spending and raise taxes. It's simple mathematics.

Cut regulation? How did that work out with Wall Street?

Oh, yea, IT DESTROYED THE ECONOMY!

Raise taxes in a recession? You are nuts

We're not in a recession, dumbass.

 

[Synthaholic]

Plundering the productive and doling out the swag to their favored constituent groups is the fundamental principle of the Democrat party.

its that way with the Republican Party too.....dole out the most to the group who gave the most....

The main constituency of the Republican party is productive members of society who are paying the freight for all the tics in the Democrat party. Why would they want the government to shake them down just so they could get a small percentage back?

You make stupid look smart.

It's been proven many times that the blue states support the red states.

 

[Synthaholic]

We have to cut spending and raise taxes. It's simple mathematics.

still havent answered me Chris......WHY haven't the Democrats at LEAST CUT ******* SPENDING?............

Spending is not out of control.

 

[Antiderivative]

He didn't veto enough crap legislation from the Dem-controlled Congress,

Bush had a Republican-controlled Congress for 6 years, you hack.

 

[Synthaholic]

Our economy was brought down when homeowners started defaulting on their mortgages.
Derivatives had nothing to do with it.
It's okay for you to admit you don't understand derivatives. Not many people do.

Wow - you are an idiot.

Just because I understand derivatives and they make you wet your pants......? LOL!

You don't understand shit.



Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is the practice of short-selling a financial instrument without first borrowing the security or ensuring that the security can be borrowed, as is conventionally done in a short sale. When the seller does not obtain the shares within the required time frame, the result is known as a "fail to deliver". The transaction generally remains open until the shares are acquired by the seller, or the seller's broker settles the trade.[1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_short_selling#cite_note-0


THAT'S what caused Lehman and Bear Stearns to fail.

 

[Synthaholic]

It's been offered a thousand times. Here, I'll repeat it for you one more time: cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulation.

I doubt it will penetrate your skull no matter how many times it's repeated.

Cut taxes?

Are you nuts? We have a trillion dollar deficit!

We have to cut spending and raise taxes. It's simple mathematics.

Cut regulation? How did that work out with Wall Street?

Oh, yea, IT DESTROYED THE ECONOMY!

Which cuts in regulation do you feel destroyed the economy?
Spell it out.

Here ya go:

How Deregulation Fueled the Financial Crisis

 

[Synthaholic]

The loud and proud conservative element on this message board, four of whom I singled out recently, aren't interested in facts, they actually believe the platitudes they post and believe anyone who disagrees or questions what they hold as immutable truths is a "commie" or left wing "libtard"

Exactly.

To wit:

Liberalism denies that all men are created equal.

Do you support affirmative action and hiring quotas?

Apparently, the Air Force had an affirmative action program for knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing retards.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow - you are an idiot.

Just because I understand derivatives and they make you wet your pants......? LOL!

You don't understand shit.



Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is the practice of short-selling a financial instrument without first borrowing the security or ensuring that the security can be borrowed, as is conventionally done in a short sale. When the seller does not obtain the shares within the required time frame, the result is known as a "fail to deliver". The transaction generally remains open until the shares are acquired by the seller, or the seller's broker settles the trade.[1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_short_selling#cite_note-0


THAT'S what caused Lehman and Bear Stearns to fail.

Naked short selling isn't a derivative.
Try again? Dumb shit.

 

[Rinata]

In 2008, Republicans faced a new popular president, large Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, and an economic crisis that Republicans had created. They could have worked with the new Democratic majority to pull our economy out of the ditch, but the Republicans realized that would just benefit the Obama administration politically. So, Republicans in Congress decided to fight economic recovery efforts every step of the way by engaging in historically unprecedented Senate obstructionism of every job creating proposal the Democrats made.

The Republicans’ theory was that doing so would keep unemployment high and economic growth low long enough to hurt the Democrats’ re-election chances in 2010, and they were right. And now Republicans are hoping the same approach will keep unemployment high and economic growth low enough to hurt President Obama’s re-election chances in 2012. Mitch McConnell has stated numerous times that defeating President Obama in 2012 is the Republicans’ number one priority, and their effort to make sure that jobs are not created is a deliberate part of that strategy.

Furthermore! – Republicans Are Intentionally Driving Our Economy Into a Ditch | BPI Campus

They don't care if things get better. They would rather sacrifice this country if it means they can defeat Obama. Which they will never be able to do.