John Maynard Dillinger Obama

[Rshermr]

Hi, worm.....


What brings you out?
Must have rained, huh?

Too wet for you in the dirt???

Me dear, you need to get a clue. I just picked up a rock, and there you were.

You can't even come up with your own insults????
You need to copy mine???


On the other hand....that does demonstrate a certain level of good taste....


Truly...you are worthless.
But you already know that.

I copy nothing. I do not read your posts, normally. Cause I know what they will say before I read them. Just copy and paste dogma fed to you by your con leaders. I gave you the opportunity, several times, to show your economic knowledge, by stating when lowering income taxes during times of high unemployment has helped. Not just decreases to the middle class or lower, but a general decrease or one targeted at the wealthy. You know, like Reagan's. You failed, this time and time after time. Because you are incapable. Just like to rub it in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is following the FDR "How to Crush the US Economy" Playbook page for page with the exact same results

Funny how history escapes cons. They blame FDR for the great recession. They tend to somehow forget that unemployment had reached over 24% by the time he took office in 1933. Funny how that works. You see, they do not like to admit that the republicans had taken unemployment from 3.2% in 1929 to over 24% when the repubs were forced to hand over the presidency in March of 1933.

The Great Depression Statistics

FDR has the worst employment record in history. Unemployment averaged 20% from 1933 until Hitler conquered France in 1940

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rshermr]

Obama is following the FDR "How to Crush the US Economy" Playbook page for page with the exact same results

Funny how history escapes cons. They blame FDR for the great recession. They tend to somehow forget that unemployment had reached over 24% by the time he took office in 1933. Funny how that works. You see, they do not like to admit that the republicans had taken unemployment from 3.2% in 1929 to over 24% when the repubs were forced to hand over the presidency in March of 1933.

The Great Depression Statistics

FDR has the worst employment record in history. Unemployment averaged 20% from 1933 until Hitler conquered France in 1940

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

18.4%. And you conveniently forgot that the repubs left Roosevelt a ue rate of 24.9%. So, the rate had decreased by 10.3% during his term. Left to the repubs, it may have reached 50%.

Funny how repubs lie, then make statements based on their lies. Must not care about integrity, eh.

Now, if you had any integrity, you would say that Hoover was the worst, since the ue rate under Hoover increased from 3.2% to 24.9%, for a total of a 21.7% INCREASE. Do you notice the dif, dipshit. One went up, the other down. Must be the shits having to lie all the time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Me dear, you need to get a clue. I just picked up a rock, and there you were.

You can't even come up with your own insults????
You need to copy mine???


On the other hand....that does demonstrate a certain level of good taste....


Truly...you are worthless.
But you already know that.

I copy nothing. I do not read your posts, normally. Cause I know what they will say before I read them. Just copy and paste dogma fed to you by your con leaders. I gave you the opportunity, several times, to show your economic knowledge, by stating when lowering income taxes during times of high unemployment has helped. Not just decreases to the middle class or lower, but a general decrease or one targeted at the wealthy. You know, like Reagan's. You failed, this time and time after time. Because you are incapable. Just like to rub it in.

"I copy nothing. I do not read your posts, normally."

A winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor"!!!

Of course you don't do it 'normally.'

You're way off the left side of the IQ curve....well beyond normal.


Watch out!....there's a robin scopin' you, you worm.

 

[Rshermr]

You can't even come up with your own insults????
You need to copy mine???


On the other hand....that does demonstrate a certain level of good taste....


Truly...you are worthless.
But you already know that.

I copy nothing. I do not read your posts, normally. Cause I know what they will say before I read them. Just copy and paste dogma fed to you by your con leaders. I gave you the opportunity, several times, to show your economic knowledge, by stating when lowering income taxes during times of high unemployment has helped. Not just decreases to the middle class or lower, but a general decrease or one targeted at the wealthy. You know, like Reagan's. You failed, this time and time after time. Because you are incapable. Just like to rub it in.

"I copy nothing. I do not read your posts, normally."

A winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor"!!!

Of course you don't do it 'normally.'

You're way off the left side of the IQ curve....well beyond normal.


Watch out!....there's a robin scopin' you, you worm.

And as usual, you have only juvenile efforts at insults. Considering the source, as I do, that is no insult at all. But all that you have.

Still, after all of the opportunities I have given you, you are unable to make an argument for lowering taxes during times of high unemployment. No examples of when it has worked. Just revert to efforts at insults.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I copy nothing. I do not read your posts, normally. Cause I know what they will say before I read them. Just copy and paste dogma fed to you by your con leaders. I gave you the opportunity, several times, to show your economic knowledge, by stating when lowering income taxes during times of high unemployment has helped. Not just decreases to the middle class or lower, but a general decrease or one targeted at the wealthy. You know, like Reagan's. You failed, this time and time after time. Because you are incapable. Just like to rub it in.

"I copy nothing. I do not read your posts, normally."

A winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor"!!!

Of course you don't do it 'normally.'

You're way off the left side of the IQ curve....well beyond normal.


Watch out!....there's a robin scopin' you, you worm.

And as usual, you have only juvenile efforts at insults. Considering the source, as I do, that is no insult at all. But all that you have.

Still, after all of the opportunities I have given you, you are unable to make an argument for lowering taxes during times of high unemployment. No examples of when it has worked. Just revert to efforts at insults.

".... you have only juvenile efforts at insults."
Really?


That's because you're just a juvenile little worm.

How's this: Don't feel sad, don't feel blue, Frankenstein was ugly too.


Sweets to the sweet.


You worm.

 

[Rshermr]

"I copy nothing. I do not read your posts, normally."

A winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor"!!!

Of course you don't do it 'normally.'

You're way off the left side of the IQ curve....well beyond normal.


Watch out!....there's a robin scopin' you, you worm.

And as usual, you have only juvenile efforts at insults. Considering the source, as I do, that is no insult at all. But all that you have.

Still, after all of the opportunities I have given you, you are unable to make an argument for lowering taxes during times of high unemployment. No examples of when it has worked. Just revert to efforts at insults.

".... you have only juvenile efforts at insults."
Really?


That's because you're just a juvenile little worm.

How's this: Don't feel sad, don't feel blue, Frankenstein was ugly too.


Sweets to the sweet.


You worm.

Another profound post by the con tool, PC. Easier that way for PC. She does not have to address economic issues. Since, after all, she is incapable of doing so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And as usual, you have only juvenile efforts at insults. Considering the source, as I do, that is no insult at all. But all that you have.

Still, after all of the opportunities I have given you, you are unable to make an argument for lowering taxes during times of high unemployment. No examples of when it has worked. Just revert to efforts at insults.

".... you have only juvenile efforts at insults."
Really?


That's because you're just a juvenile little worm.

How's this: Don't feel sad, don't feel blue, Frankenstein was ugly too.


Sweets to the sweet.


You worm.

Another profound post by the con tool, PC. Easier that way for PC. She does not have to address economic issues. Since, after all, she is incapable of doing so.

I addressed a more important issue: identifying you as the slimy little invertebrate that you are.

I hear that you're so stupid that mind readers charge you half price.
True?

 

[Rshermr]

".... you have only juvenile efforts at insults."
Really?


That's because you're just a juvenile little worm.

How's this: Don't feel sad, don't feel blue, Frankenstein was ugly too.


Sweets to the sweet.


You worm.

Another profound post by the con tool, PC. Easier that way for PC. She does not have to address economic issues. Since, after all, she is incapable of doing so.

I addressed a more important issue: identifying you as the slimy little invertebrate that you are.

I hear that you're so stupid that mind readers charge you half price.
True?

But then, all can recognize your malfunction, PC. Just look at the tag quote you have on all of your posts. Ann Coulter. ANN COULTER. Jesus. And you expect someone to take you seriously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another profound post by the con tool, PC. Easier that way for PC. She does not have to address economic issues. Since, after all, she is incapable of doing so.

I addressed a more important issue: identifying you as the slimy little invertebrate that you are.

I hear that you're so stupid that mind readers charge you half price.
True?

But then, all can recognize your malfunction, PC. Just look at the tag quote you have on all of your posts. Ann Coulter. ANN COULTER. Jesus. And you expect someone to take you seriously.

Let's check "Rshermr"....


Survey finds most common response is.....

...WORM!!

 

[Freemason9]

It seems that our economic tool boxes didn't work very well when the economy lost $13 trillion in value at the end of the Bush term. Dammit, it must be Obama's fault.

LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems that our economic tool boxes didn't work very well when the economy lost $13 trillion in value at the end of the Bush term. Dammit, it must be Obama's fault.

LOL

Let's appraise you as to exactly what is Obama's fault.

History has provided the proper instructions on how to fix the economy.
Obama, the carved-in-stone ideologue, refused to learn from the past.


Let's see if you can:


"Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.


By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight."
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com




Of course, there are those who say that Obama isn't stupid.....that he actually wished the economy to crash......


What do you say?

 

[Freemason9]

It seems that our economic tool boxes didn't work very well when the economy lost $13 trillion in value at the end of the Bush term. Dammit, it must be Obama's fault.

LOL

Let's appraise you as to exactly what is Obama's fault.

History has provided the proper instructions on how to fix the economy.
Obama, the carved-in-stone ideologue, refused to learn from the past.


Let's see if you can:


"Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.


By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight."
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com




Of course, there are those who say that Obama isn't stupid.....that he actually wished the economy to crash......


What do you say?

Nope, that's wrong. Reagan actually inherited an economy that HAD BEEN in a very long recession (not a collapse, by a long shot) and was in the beginning phases of recovery. You might even remember, revisions aside, that the early policies of Reagan that cut spending actually plunged the economy into a fairly sizeable recession again in 1981-1982. Only when Reagan engaged in rampant deficit spending did the economy begin a longer-term recovery.

Obama took office as the economy was in the midst of a horrific collapse. $13 trillion LOST! It was incomparable, and still is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems that our economic tool boxes didn't work very well when the economy lost $13 trillion in value at the end of the Bush term. Dammit, it must be Obama's fault.

LOL

Let's appraise you as to exactly what is Obama's fault.

History has provided the proper instructions on how to fix the economy.
Obama, the carved-in-stone ideologue, refused to learn from the past.


Let's see if you can:


"Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.


By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight."
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com




Of course, there are those who say that Obama isn't stupid.....that he actually wished the economy to crash......


What do you say?

Nope, that's wrong. Reagan actually inherited an economy that HAD BEEN in a very long recession (not a collapse, by a long shot) and was in the beginning phases of recovery. You might even remember, revisions aside, that the early policies of Reagan that cut spending actually plunged the economy into a fairly sizeable recession again in 1981-1982. Only when Reagan engaged in rampant deficit spending did the economy begin a longer-term recovery.

Obama took office as the economy was in the midst of a horrific collapse. $13 trillion LOST! It was incomparable, and still is.

1. Try working with the facts:


"National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office"
Less than two months into President Obama's second term, new numbers show the national debt increased by more than $6 trillion since he took office.

It's the largest increase to date under any U.S. president. During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion."

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572177/national-debt-up-$6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/



2. Cutting taxes, by Reagan, by Harding, by Kennedy, all stimulated the economy, brought in more revenue to the government.

The community organizer is either ignorant of economics, or would rather use the thug politician trick of 'stimulus,' meaning give cronies money so they can kick it back in 'donations.'


So....stupid or crooked. Which one?

 

[Freemason9]

Let's appraise you as to exactly what is Obama's fault.

History has provided the proper instructions on how to fix the economy.
Obama, the carved-in-stone ideologue, refused to learn from the past.


Let's see if you can:


"Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.


By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight."
Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com




Of course, there are those who say that Obama isn't stupid.....that he actually wished the economy to crash......


What do you say?

Nope, that's wrong. Reagan actually inherited an economy that HAD BEEN in a very long recession (not a collapse, by a long shot) and was in the beginning phases of recovery. You might even remember, revisions aside, that the early policies of Reagan that cut spending actually plunged the economy into a fairly sizeable recession again in 1981-1982. Only when Reagan engaged in rampant deficit spending did the economy begin a longer-term recovery.

Obama took office as the economy was in the midst of a horrific collapse. $13 trillion LOST! It was incomparable, and still is.

1. Try working with the facts:


"National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office"
Less than two months into President Obama's second term, new numbers show the national debt increased by more than $6 trillion since he took office.

It's the largest increase to date under any U.S. president. During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion."

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572177/national-debt-up-$6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/



2. Cutting taxes, by Reagan, by Harding, by Kennedy, all stimulated the economy, brought in more revenue to the government.

The community organizer is either ignorant of economics, or would rather use the thug politician trick of 'stimulus,' meaning give cronies money so they can kick it back in 'donations.'


So....stupid or crooked. Which one?

DUH

Every president after Carter has had record deficits. Obama is no different, except for the economic collapse he had to deal with.

Cutting taxes = increasing deficit spending.

Again, DUH

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Every president after Carter has had record deficits. Obama is no different,

1) of course it would be illegal to have deficits if Democrats had not killed all 30 Balanced Budget Amendments introduced by Republicans since Jefferson's first.

2) Obama and liberals idiotically believe that deficits stimulate the economy so they of course block balanced budgets and of course are more responsible for deficits and debts. A child could grasp this, just not a liberal who will naturally be very very slow.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope, that's wrong. Reagan actually inherited an economy that HAD BEEN in a very long recession (not a collapse, by a long shot) and was in the beginning phases of recovery. You might even remember, revisions aside, that the early policies of Reagan that cut spending actually plunged the economy into a fairly sizeable recession again in 1981-1982. Only when Reagan engaged in rampant deficit spending did the economy begin a longer-term recovery.

Obama took office as the economy was in the midst of a horrific collapse. $13 trillion LOST! It was incomparable, and still is.

1. Try working with the facts:


"National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office"
Less than two months into President Obama's second term, new numbers show the national debt increased by more than $6 trillion since he took office.

It's the largest increase to date under any U.S. president. During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion."

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572177/national-debt-up-$6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/



2. Cutting taxes, by Reagan, by Harding, by Kennedy, all stimulated the economy, brought in more revenue to the government.

The community organizer is either ignorant of economics, or would rather use the thug politician trick of 'stimulus,' meaning give cronies money so they can kick it back in 'donations.'


So....stupid or crooked. Which one?

DUH

Every president after Carter has had record deficits. Obama is no different, except for the economic collapse he had to deal with.

Cutting taxes = increasing deficit spending.

Again, DUH

"Obama is no different"

Can't you read?


"National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office"
Less than two months into President Obama's second term, new numbers show the national debt increased by more than $6 trillion since he took office.

It's the largest increase to date under any U.S. president. During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion."

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572177/national-debt-up-$6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/

 

[Rshermr]

1. Try working with the facts:


"National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office"
Less than two months into President Obama's second term, new numbers show the national debt increased by more than $6 trillion since he took office.

It's the largest increase to date under any U.S. president. During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion."

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572177/national-debt-up-$6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/



2. Cutting taxes, by Reagan, by Harding, by Kennedy, all stimulated the economy, brought in more revenue to the government.

The community organizer is either ignorant of economics, or would rather use the thug politician trick of 'stimulus,' meaning give cronies money so they can kick it back in 'donations.'


So....stupid or crooked. Which one?

DUH

Every president after Carter has had record deficits. Obama is no different, except for the economic collapse he had to deal with.

Cutting taxes = increasing deficit spending.

Again, DUH

"Obama is no different"

Can't you read?


"National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office"
Less than two months into President Obama's second term, new numbers show the national debt increased by more than $6 trillion since he took office.

It's the largest increase to date under any U.S. president. During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion."

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572177/national-debt-up-$6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/

But then, you are an economic idiot.
1. When any pres takes office, it is a good while before he can have any effect on an economic dowturn.
2. The prior admin gave us the great republican depression of 2008.
3. Job losses were still at record levels.
4. Tax receipts went down, way down. And, my poor economically challenged con tool, deficits are a result of both expenditures AND receipts.
5. W did not enter an economy that was tanking. Instead, he tanked a good economy that he inherited.
6. Funny that you never talk about real numbers. Cons never adjust for inflation when it is in their favor.
Now, I know as a con tool, you can never admit it, but no pres has yet equaled the feat of your great hero, RR. He Tripled the national debt.
So, whatever, dipshit. Your drivel is drivel because you can not provide balanced arguments for economic issues. What was needed was major stimulus spending. Not a beat up bill made up largely of tax cuts. But you still can not respond to when it was that any high unemployment economy has been helped by tax cuts. Because, you are, a con tool posting conservative dogma.

 

[PoliticalChic]

DUH

Every president after Carter has had record deficits. Obama is no different, except for the economic collapse he had to deal with.

Cutting taxes = increasing deficit spending.

Again, DUH

"Obama is no different"

Can't you read?


"National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office"
Less than two months into President Obama's second term, new numbers show the national debt increased by more than $6 trillion since he took office.

It's the largest increase to date under any U.S. president. During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion."

On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572177/national-debt-up-$6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/

But then, you are an economic idiot.
1. When any pres takes office, it is a good while before he can have any effect on an economic dowturn.
2. The prior admin gave us the great republican depression of 2008.
3. Job losses were still at record levels.
4. Tax receipts went down, way down. And, my poor economically challenged con tool, deficits are a result of both expenditures AND receipts.
5. W did not enter an economy that was tanking. Instead, he tanked a good economy that he inherited.
6. Funny that you never talk about real numbers. Cons never adjust for inflation when it is in their favor.
Now, I know as a con tool, you can never admit it, but no pres has yet equaled the feat of your great hero, RR. He Tripled the national debt.
So, whatever, dipshit. Your drivel is drivel because you can not provide balanced arguments for economic issues. What was needed was major stimulus spending. Not a beat up bill made up largely of tax cuts. But you still can not respond to when it was that any high unemployment economy has been helped by tax cuts. Because, you are, a con tool posting conservative dogma.

Can't you get ANYTHING right????


You worms are supposed to eat offal....

...instead you come here and spew it in the thread???


Yechhhhh.....


If you had another brain like the one you've got, you'd still be a half-wit.

 

[Moonglow]

The economy is good where I live, Has been for 2 years. Wages are up as well as all indicators of a good economy.