Would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

[Faun]

Republicans HAVE sabotaged the economy for political gain.

It just didn't work.

Just think how much better off the country and the Republican party would be IF every time the Dems made an economic proposal, the Repubs came back with either an improvement to the idea or simply a better idea.

And the economy was rolling along and Repubs could point with pride to the ideas they presented and implemented and say; yes we did that, for ALL America.

How exactly has the party that controls half of one third of the government sabotaged the economy?

The current economic mess belongs solely to obama and the dems. Its their policies that have kept unemployment at 8% or more, put more people in poverty than ever more, and more on food stamps than ever before.

But I guess you think having more people dependent on govt is a good thing.

Nonsense. Bush's (and Republicans) policies put far more people into poverty than Obama's. Bush's policies increased poverty from 11% to about 14%. Obama's policies raised it to about15%.

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans HAVE sabotaged the economy for political gain.

It just didn't work.

Just think how much better off the country and the Republican party would be IF every time the Dems made an economic proposal, the Repubs came back with either an improvement to the idea or simply a better idea.

And the economy was rolling along and Repubs could point with pride to the ideas they presented and implemented and say; yes we did that, for ALL America.

How exactly has the party that controls half of one third of the government sabotaged the economy?

The current economic mess belongs solely to obama and the dems. Its their policies that have kept unemployment at 8% or more, put more people in poverty than ever more, and more on food stamps than ever before.

But I guess you think having more people dependent on govt is a good thing.

Nonsense. Bush's (and Republicans) policies put far more people into poverty than Obama's. Bush's policies increased poverty from 11% to about 14%. Obama's policies raised it to about15%.

So Obama's poverty rate is worse than Bush's. We get it. D o you?

 

[Faun]

Are you still here? I would have thought being squashed like a bug would be enough.
What did the Dems do when they took over Congress to forestall any of it? Yeah, nothing. We know.

I note your article mentions foreclosures are at an all time high of 1%. No one was noticing at that level. How many hours of Google did it take you to pull that one article out of your ass?

That you think you squashed anything only serves to demonstrate just how delusional you are; and your idiocy of blaming Democrats for passing a bill when Republicans failed to pass any bill at all serves to demonstrate how retarded you are.

The search itself took minutes. And that "all time high of 1%" was enough to generate an article questioning the concern of the alarming growth of toxic loans -- in April of 2006.

By 2007, the damage was done. Record levels of foreclosures (at that time) was sweeping the nation.

Despite Near record Foreclosure Listings Filings in 2007, Foreclosure Crisis Expected to Deepen in 2008

While the year 2007 saw more foreclosure listings come on the books in most states than in any previous years of the recent foreclosure boom, experts are now saying 2008 is primed to be even worse, and that the foreclosure listings epidemic is far from over.

With over 1.8 million homes having already become the subject of foreclosure listings since the beginning of the real estate crisis, it seems that the continued downslide in home values and buyers nationwide is changing the face of the types of foreclosure listings we are seeing appear. In previous years, most of the foreclosure listings activity has been linked to sub-prime mortgages. These mortgages surged in popularity during the later years of the housing boom which preceded the real estate crisis, as they offered low initial cost mortgages to borrowers with bad credit history and low income. The dream of home ownership at a low cost appealed to many, but unfortunately many of these loans carried adjustable rates, which resulted in huge increases in monthly payments due after the first year of instatement. This left many low income homeowners reeling, and sent many properties in states across the nation to foreclosure listings.​

Hey, Dumbfuck ... look at that ... it was a crisis despite your insane cries that the crisis didn't begin until the summer of 2008.

And you never did answer the question ... what percentage of blame do you assign to Republicans vs Democrats? Keep in mind, Republicans = 4 years, 0 bills passed; Democrast = 1½ years = 1 bill passed

What did the Democrats do about it when they took control of the House and Senate? Oh yeah, nothing.
You aren't very bright, are you?

You're a riot. Despite your lie that Democrats did nothing, in reality, they got a bill to the President's desk. If you want to see what "nothing" really looks like, just look at what Republicans did during the previous 4 years.

 

[The Rabbi]

That you think you squashed anything only serves to demonstrate just how delusional you are; and your idiocy of blaming Democrats for passing a bill when Republicans failed to pass any bill at all serves to demonstrate how retarded you are.

The search itself took minutes. And that "all time high of 1%" was enough to generate an article questioning the concern of the alarming growth of toxic loans -- in April of 2006.

By 2007, the damage was done. Record levels of foreclosures (at that time) was sweeping the nation.

Despite Near record Foreclosure Listings Filings in 2007, Foreclosure Crisis Expected to Deepen in 2008

While the year 2007 saw more foreclosure listings come on the books in most states than in any previous years of the recent foreclosure boom, experts are now saying 2008 is primed to be even worse, and that the foreclosure listings epidemic is far from over.

With over 1.8 million homes having already become the subject of foreclosure listings since the beginning of the real estate crisis, it seems that the continued downslide in home values and buyers nationwide is changing the face of the types of foreclosure listings we are seeing appear. In previous years, most of the foreclosure listings activity has been linked to sub-prime mortgages. These mortgages surged in popularity during the later years of the housing boom which preceded the real estate crisis, as they offered low initial cost mortgages to borrowers with bad credit history and low income. The dream of home ownership at a low cost appealed to many, but unfortunately many of these loans carried adjustable rates, which resulted in huge increases in monthly payments due after the first year of instatement. This left many low income homeowners reeling, and sent many properties in states across the nation to foreclosure listings.​

Hey, Dumbfuck ... look at that ... it was a crisis despite your insane cries that the crisis didn't begin until the summer of 2008.

And you never did answer the question ... what percentage of blame do you assign to Republicans vs Democrats? Keep in mind, Republicans = 4 years, 0 bills passed; Democrast = 1½ years = 1 bill passed

What did the Democrats do about it when they took control of the House and Senate? Oh yeah, nothing.
You aren't very bright, are you?

You're a riot. Despite your lie that Democrats did nothing, in reality, they got a bill to the President's desk. If you want to see what "nothing" really looks like, just look at what Republicans did during the previous 4 years.

And that bill prevented the meltdown as well as future abuses. Right? Oh, wait.
No nothing like that.

 

[Faun]

How exactly has the party that controls half of one third of the government sabotaged the economy?

The current economic mess belongs solely to obama and the dems. Its their policies that have kept unemployment at 8% or more, put more people in poverty than ever more, and more on food stamps than ever before.

But I guess you think having more people dependent on govt is a good thing.

Nonsense. Bush's (and Republicans) policies put far more people into poverty than Obama's. Bush's policies increased poverty from 11% to about 14%. Obama's policies raised it to about15%.

So Obama's poverty rate is worse than Bush's. We get it. D o you?

The poverty rate is higher but Bush put more people into poverty than Obama did.

 

[Faun]

What did the Democrats do about it when they took control of the House and Senate? Oh yeah, nothing.
You aren't very bright, are you?

You're a riot. Despite your lie that Democrats did nothing, in reality, they got a bill to the President's desk. If you want to see what "nothing" really looks like, just look at what Republicans did during the previous 4 years.

And that bill prevented the meltdown as well as future abuses. Right? Oh, wait.
No nothing like that.

How was a bill in 2008 supposed to prevent loans from being written between 2002 and 2006? You're not very sharp.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nonsense. Bush's (and Republicans) policies put far more people into poverty than Obama's. Bush's policies increased poverty from 11% to about 14%. Obama's policies raised it to about15%.

So Obama's poverty rate is worse than Bush's. We get it. D o you?

The poverty rate is higher but Bush put more people into poverty than Obama did.

Only if you assume poverty is a permanent state. The truth is that more people are in poverty under Obama than under Bush, that enrollements in food stamps, SSI, and the like are much higher than when Bush was president, and the UE rate is lower than when Bush left office only because it doesn't count people who stopped looking.
In other words, 4 years into a supposed recovery the economy still looks like Detroit.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're a riot. Despite your lie that Democrats did nothing, in reality, they got a bill to the President's desk. If you want to see what "nothing" really looks like, just look at what Republicans did during the previous 4 years.

And that bill prevented the meltdown as well as future abuses. Right? Oh, wait.
No nothing like that.

How was a bill in 2008 supposed to prevent loans from being written between 2002 and 2006? You're not very sharp.

Because the melt down started before 2008. So where were the Dems during this time??

 

[Faun]

And that bill prevented the meltdown as well as future abuses. Right? Oh, wait.
No nothing like that.

How was a bill in 2008 supposed to prevent loans from being written between 2002 and 2006? You're not very sharp.

Because the melt down started before 2008. So where were the Dems during this time??

Who knows why you're incapable of understanding that the damage was already done by the time Democrats took over Congress? Seems to me it's because you're just one of them low-information idiots. Your ignorance aside, the vast majority of toxic loans which crashed the economy were written before Democrats were in charge of the Congress. By that time, it was too late to prevent the crash. The Republicans you fluff, screwed the pooch by not doing anything about it during the time something could be done.

I also notice you're too afraid to answer my question ... what percentage of blame do you place on Republicans vs. Democrats?

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans HAVE sabotaged the economy for political gain.

It just didn't work.

Just think how much better off the country and the Republican party would be IF every time the Dems made an economic proposal, the Repubs came back with either an improvement to the idea or simply a better idea.

And the economy was rolling along and Repubs could point with pride to the ideas they presented and implemented and say; yes we did that, for ALL America.

How exactly has the party that controls half of one third of the government sabotaged the economy?

The current economic mess belongs solely to obama and the dems. Its their policies that have kept unemployment at 8% or more, put more people in poverty than ever more, and more on food stamps than ever before.

But I guess you think having more people dependent on govt is a good thing.

Nonsense. Bush's (and Republicans) policies put far more people into poverty than Obama's. Bush's policies increased poverty from 11% to about 14%. Obama's policies raised it to about15%.

The only problem with that theory is that all the increase you're blaming on Bush occurred on Obama's watch.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Sabotage the economy ? F---ing precious..... Whats desperately needed is more massive spending, stimulus, bail outs and tax hikes !!! For the people ! Lol

 

[dblack]

Sabotage the economy ? F---ing precious..... Whats desperately needed is more massive spending, stimulus, bail outs and tax hikes !!! For the people ! Lol

Let it ride! Double or nuthin'!

 

[Katzndogz]

There are people who believe that the economy could be saved by paying people not to work.

 

[Spoonman]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

actually the republicans are more about creating jobs than paying people not to work. perhaps if the democrats would get on board and give up their dream of creating an entitled nation we could really get the economy jump started

 

[Spoonman]

Nonsense. Bush's (and Republicans) policies put far more people into poverty than Obama's. Bush's policies increased poverty from 11% to about 14%. Obama's policies raised it to about15%.

So Obama's poverty rate is worse than Bush's. We get it. D o you?

The poverty rate is higher but Bush put more people into poverty than Obama did.

Faun, been smoking some of that new medial marijuana now aren't you?

 

[RandomVariable]

There are people who believe that the economy could be saved by paying people not to work.

There are people who believe whatever the insanely rich people want them to believe.

 

[The Rabbi]

So Obama's poverty rate is worse than Bush's. We get it. D o you?

The poverty rate is higher but Bush put more people into poverty than Obama did.

Faun, been smoking some of that new medial marijuana now aren't you?

It's the kind that suggests that Republicans are so evil they can break things and Democrats are so strong they can't fix them. Also that the GOP is culpable for blocking Obama's agenda, but the Democrats were powerless to stop Bush.
Democrats: The Party of No, We Can't.

 

[whitehall]

Would they? We already know from Gate's book that democrats sabotaged the Iraq/Afghanistan mission because they thought it would cost them votes. I wish somebody would talk to former democrat congressman Barney Frank who told Americans that Fannie Mae was solvent and doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse and he was responsible for monitoring it as chairman of the House Banking Committee. He skipped town when he retired and married his current boyfriend.

 

[Spoonman]

The poverty rate is higher but Bush put more people into poverty than Obama did.

Faun, been smoking some of that new medial marijuana now aren't you?

It's the kind that suggests that Republicans are so evil they can break things and Democrats are so strong they can't fix them. Also that the GOP is culpable for blocking Obama's agenda, but the Democrats were powerless to stop Bush.
Democrats: The Party of No, We Can't.

some liberal needs to answer this one for me. They can get the stimulus package passed without the republican vote. they an get Obamacare passed without the republican vote. Why can't they get all the other stuff passed they claim the republicans are holding them back on?

 

[bripat9643]

There are people who believe that the economy could be saved by paying people not to work.

There are people who believe whatever the insanely rich people want them to believe.

They're called liberals. They believe whatever Nazi Pelosi and Harry Reid tell them.