The real reason the right-wing pushing so hard to make the oil spill Obama's Fault...

[PatekPhilippe]

And the 500,000 new census jobs,

you really aren't stupid enough to believe those jobs are permanent ...... are you?

Did I say they were? I said they would spur the economy.

They didn't spur shit....but I guarantee you they will spur the unemployment rate UP when they are all cut in a few short months.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Explain how government jobs spur the economy. I'd argue it would do more harm since non-govt. workers are the ones paying the govt. workers.


Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

 

[sangha]

I see you can't admit you just got pwned, so you're trying to distract by moving on to something else. There's nothing more cowardly than a wingnut running away from his own words

This little line from Sanga is hilarious considering the fact that I absolutely pwned his/her sorry ass in the hypocrisy thread oh around 20 minutes ago and he/she jumped out of there like it was the Titantic.

Sangha. You're a piece of shit

conjob is hallucinating again. The truth is, I got him so rattled that he is claiming that bush is a liberal for two reasons
1) bush supported the increased spending by congress while he was president

AND

2) bush did not support the increased spending by congress while he was president

I'm still waiting for conjon to explain his contradiction. Maybe he'll answer now[/QUOTE

]

There is no contradiction you buffoon, A President proposes a budget, Congress either supports it or doesn't . Common sense tells you no President is going to propose a budget that he doesn't approve of.

Now get your yellow bellied ass back into the hypocrisy thread and explain how they can get a mosque into a community center without building a mosque.

Dip shit.

Like I said; conjob thinks bush supported the spending and did NOT support the spending

 

[ConHog]

conjob is hallucinating again. The truth is, I got him so rattled that he is claiming that bush is a liberal for two reasons
1) bush supported the increased spending by congress while he was president

AND

2) bush did not support the increased spending by congress while he was president

I'm still waiting for conjon to explain his contradiction. Maybe he'll answer now[/QUOTE

]

There is no contradiction you buffoon, A President proposes a budget, Congress either supports it or doesn't . Common sense tells you no President is going to propose a budget that he doesn't approve of.

Now get your yellow bellied ass back into the hypocrisy thread and explain how they can get a mosque into a community center without building a mosque.

Dip shit.

Like I said; conjob thinks bush supported the spending and did NOT support the spending

You notice you've posted that bullshit like 50 times and not a single other lib has jumped on your bandwagon? Know why? Because even they think you're stupid and entirely missed the point. By the way that conversation is now three days old, if that's the best you have, I'd suggest you jump out of the ring junior you're liable to get hurt.

 

[Vast LWC]

Explain how government jobs spur the economy. I'd argue it would do more harm since non-govt. workers are the ones paying the govt. workers.


Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

500,000 paychecks = 500,000 more consumers.

Simple enough. This spurs economic growth, creating more jobs.

You can be damn sure "Trickle Down" economics isn't spurring anything at all.

The wealthy have been getting wealthier (both in total and in relation to the rest of the population) for years, but payrolls have not risen, despite the fact that productivity has.

 

[ConHog]

As for the OP

It's simple just as Katrina was BOOSH's problem, so now this is Obama's problem. That's fair, no?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Explain how government jobs spur the economy. I'd argue it would do more harm since non-govt. workers are the ones paying the govt. workers.


Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

500,000 paychecks = 500,000 more consumers.

Simple enough. This spurs economic growth, creating more jobs.

You can be damn sure "Trickle Down" economics isn't spurring anything at all.

The wealthy have been getting wealthier (both in total and in relation to the rest of the population) for years, but payrolls have not risen, despite the fact that productivity has.

Answer me this , who is paying for these 500,000 paychecks?

You and I are that's who.

And if we had the money that we spent paying these assholes, we could invest more of it into the economy ourselves. Basically all we're doing is giving our money to these idiots to spend and we get nothing to show for it.

Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man?

 

[ConHog]

Explain how government jobs spur the economy. I'd argue it would do more harm since non-govt. workers are the ones paying the govt. workers.


Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

500,000 paychecks = 500,000 more consumers.

Simple enough. This spurs economic growth, creating more jobs.

You can be damn sure "Trickle Down" economics isn't spurring anything at all.

The wealthy have been getting wealthier (both in total and in relation to the rest of the population) for years, but payrolls have not risen, despite the fact that productivity has.

Answer me this , who is paying for these 500,000 paychecks?

You and I are that's who.

And if we had the money that we spent paying these assholes, we could invest more of it into the economy ourselves. Basically all we're doing is giving our money to these idiots to spend and we get nothing to show for it.

Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man?

Actually I have, I went to work for Uncle Sam, that son of a ***** is always broke.

 

[Vast LWC]

Answer me this , who is paying for these 500,000 paychecks?

You and I are that's who.

And if we had the money that we spent paying these assholes, we could invest more of it into the economy ourselves. Basically all we're doing is giving our money to these idiots to spend and we get nothing to show for it.

Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man?

Actually, as you and your cohorts point out so often, 99% of it is actually being paid by the top 1%, the very wealthy.

Since the wealth gap has been steadily increasing over the years, as jobs have been moving overseas and the very wealthy are profiting off of it, I don't feel at all bad about them paying for almost all of these 500,000 Constitutionally mandated paychecks, which are in fact helping to spur the economy.

And yes, there are plenty of people who are not in the top 1% that hire other people. Small business owners all over the country.

Even most major corporations are made up of relatively "poor" people that hire people. As you folks are quick to point out, corporations are in fact owned by many shareholders. Most of these shareholders are usually not rich, but are in fact conglomerations of pensions and mutual funds held by the non-rich.

 

[Vast LWC]

As for the OP

It's simple just as Katrina was BOOSH's problem, so now this is Obama's problem. That's fair, no?

New Orleans was not a mile under the surface of the Ocean, and could easily be reached by multiple sources of transportation.

In addition, Katrina was not CAUSED BY A CORPORATION.

So, no, this is BP's problem.

 

[ConHog]

As for the OP

It's simple just as Katrina was BOOSH's problem, so now this is Obama's problem. That's fair, no?

New Orleans was not a mile under the surface of the Ocean, and could easily be reached by multiple sources of transportation.

In addition, Katrina was not CAUSED BY A CORPORATION.

So, no, this is BP's problem.

Indeed they are, and they have said so. I'm sure I don't have to point that out to you. BUT just as anything that happened under BOOSH's watch was his problem, anything that happened under Obama's watch is HIS problem.


But ok, let's use another example. Who do you blame for the economic collapse in 2006?

 

[boedicca]

I didn't realize that Rolling Stone Magazine is now part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to hold Obama accountable for his presidency.

The Spill, The Scandal and the President | Rolling Stone Politics

 

[NYcarbineer]

When was Bush elected? When did the Democrats take control of Congress?

What specific policies do you think the Democrats put in place that stifled the economy in 2007 and 2008?

Please feel free to list them, I'm all ears.

Frank's just trolling. It's what he does now. He has forum PTSD.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I didn't realize that Rolling Stone Magazine is now part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to hold Obama accountable for his presidency.

The Spill, The Scandal and the President | Rolling Stone Politics

You don't believe that right wing shit in Rolling Stone do you???!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[boedicca]

Oh yeah. Jann Wenner is Karl Rove's homey.

 

[ConHog]

Why is Obama refusing all the offered help to clean this ******* mess up?

 

[boedicca]

Because his objective is not to deal with the disaster - it's to use it for political purposes.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Why is Obama refusing all the offered help to clean this ******* mess up?

Look. Obama can't do anything to piss off the unions....they bankrolled him so he would bail out their pension funds...he can't go against Soros.

All he has to do is waive the Jone's Act and let the Europeans help!!!

 

[ConHog]

Because his objective is not to deal with the disaster - it's to use it for political purposes.

Honest question do you think that is it, or do you think he's just in over his head and can't make a decision? I just don't know.........

 

[boedicca]

He is totally in over his head.

He's never before held a real executive experience. He doesn't know how to make a decision, implement it, and take the heat when (inevitalbly) something goes wrong - and then to figure out how to handle the unexpected.