Now do the Dems own the economy?

[CrusaderFrank]

its funny here are bills that haven become law yet and these retarded republie-tards tell us the debt is becasue of these bills ... lets look at what they claim...

1)Obama care not in affect and according toi the CBO it will have no affect on the debt... but again its no law yet but it casue this 17 trillion dollar debt we have ... Right!!!!

2)DODD-Frank a good law but not enough regulation on the banks in my opinion and that too doesn't become law until 2014 ... but it casue this 17 trillion dollar debt we have ... Right!!!!

3) now we have the stimulus bill we needed to boost our economy ... according to the majority of economist we need a 1'3 trillion dollar Stimulus to make it work ... republicans refused that one right off the top... what we did pass was a stimulus that had 300 billion dollars of tax right offs for corporations ... 599 billion dollars for states to start rebuilding the roads water woprks what ever public service they needed ... under bush his stimulus a trillion dollars ... under reagan and bush 1 a 1.5 trillion dollars stimulus.... when it comes to republicans they have no problem spending tax payers money on their watch ... when it comes to dems, they all of a sudden have a problem spending money of any kind ... did it fail under obama ???? most ecomomist say it help but not enought money to turn things around right away...

Dodd-Frank isn't law today?

Wow.

See they don't own their failed ideas

Part of Frank's "signature" line: Sent from my Encryption defeating NSA Supercomputer made of Xbox and Nintendo parts sold to the Chinese using Tapatalk 2

Every time I see that signature line I want to comment on it. I started a thread years ago about the dangers of moving the ability to make computer chips to China and USMB Republicans laughed and laughed and laughed. They believe "military chips" are "different". When I said the Military created a super computer from "game chips", they posted comment after comment mocking the idea. Even when it was reported all over the world, they didn't believe it. It couldn't be true.

Air Force Unveils Fastest Defense Supercomputer, Made of 1,760 PlayStation 3s | Popular Science

And poor Frank clings to that today. Doncha just love it?

Yeah Deany I like how you get that its directed at you.

 

[TooTall]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz said they did. Obama and Reid have full control of the economy. So the answer to "do the Dems own the economy?" is obvious.

No! They don't. They never will.

Their policies have given us the worst economy since the FDR Depression but it's Bush and Boehners fault, maybe Reagan's fault too.

Dems are against private ownership of anything even their own failed ideas

The housing and financial meltdown that happened on Bush's watch was - according to your party - Carter, Clinton and the Dems fault.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch ... but it was Clinton's fault, as if he chose to ignore the August warning and leave the Eastern Seaboard undefended.

For 8 years Bush took responsibility for nothing and now you're pointing the finger at the other side.

The Sequester or CR reflects Republican Spending levels. These levels are far less than the Dems want, and they are far less than the spending levels of the Bush years where W didn't veto one piece of Republican Pork ... Bridge to Nowhere. We didn't hear a fucking peep when Bush doubled Clinton's spending and raised the debt ceiling 7 times, 3 of which were with a GOP House and Senate. Not a fucking peep.

I agree with you though. It is Obama's economy. He allowed himself to be filibustered and obstructed to death. FDR and LBJ would have outsmarted the bastards trying to destroy his economy but Obama lacked the political courage to fight. All legislation is being stopped by a Republican House that has been told that even a 1% compromise with Obama will result in a Koch funded primary challenge. It's politics and Obama is losing. It's a failure of leadership. It's the Carter syndrome.

But since you didn't complain about the Bush spending years, and since Bush failed to take responsibility for stuff that happened on his watch, you and your party lack credibility when you talk about accountability. It just sounds silly.

The housing meltdown was exactly as you described, with one caveat. Bush failed in his attempts to put a stop to the policies and practices that his predecessors put in place and certainly deserves some of the blame. You said Carter, Clinton and the Dems fault, so let's say Bush deserves 1/4 of the blame.

The eastern seaboard was defended. The hijacked jetliners did not come from the east where our early warning systems are concentrated, they came from the west. Our defenses on the west coast are concentrated to the west.

Bush inherited the dotcom bubble bust when he took office left over from the Clinton years.

Bush had that pesky little problem of an attack on the WTC and Pentagon to contend with, and did the right thing by attacking the assholes that perpetrated the attack. He invaded Iraq, with the approval of the US Congress, including many prominent Democrats as well as a resolution from the UN.
Bush was blamed for Hurricane Katrina, but he really didn't control the weather or walk on water.
All of these cost money, and Bush spent it.
Here are a few facts I found:

Republicans led the House corresponding to budgets written for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2007. Democrats led it for FY 2008-2011 budgets.

Federal spending never exceeded 23.5% of GDP from 1947 through 2008. Obama will have exceeded that level in each of the four years of his term. OMB estimates federal spending to be over 25% of GDP right now. Obama is simply blowing through all levels of spending that preceded him, six decades worth, without anything resembling a return to historical levels.

I, for one, complained about the deficit spending, but Bush has been gone or almost 5 years and, as you can see, the spending as a percentage of GDP has increased.

He put in place the end of the Iraq war for Obama, and Obama tripled the troops in Afghanistan resulting in far more KIA on his watch than on Bush's.

I suggest that most legislation is being stopped by the Senate. The House has sent dozens of bill to the Senate where Harry Reid doesn't bring them to the floor for a vote and/or Obama says he will veto them if they pass.

 

[TooTall]

nope .... not until the republicans let us dems pass 1.3 trillion dollar stimulus... then we own it... you republicans ran up this debt ... you broke it you own it ... all we dem/liberals were able to do so far is stop some of the major hemorrhaging that you republicans created ...

Where does the $1.3 trillion come from?

 

[hjmick]

Yes.


They owned it the day they took over the administration and began to implement their policies. The same was true of Bush and the same will be true of the next President.

 

[rdean]

Dodd-Frank isn't law today?

Wow.

See they don't own their failed ideas

Part of Frank's "signature" line: Sent from my Encryption defeating NSA Supercomputer made of Xbox and Nintendo parts sold to the Chinese using Tapatalk 2

Every time I see that signature line I want to comment on it. I started a thread years ago about the dangers of moving the ability to make computer chips to China and USMB Republicans laughed and laughed and laughed. They believe "military chips" are "different". When I said the Military created a super computer from "game chips", they posted comment after comment mocking the idea. Even when it was reported all over the world, they didn't believe it. It couldn't be true.

Air Force Unveils Fastest Defense Supercomputer, Made of 1,760 PlayStation 3s | Popular Science

And poor Frank clings to that today. Doncha just love it?

Yeah Deany I like how you get that its directed at you.

It's directed at common sense and intelligence. Things you mock.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Part of Frank's "signature" line: Sent from my Encryption defeating NSA Supercomputer made of Xbox and Nintendo parts sold to the Chinese using Tapatalk 2

Every time I see that signature line I want to comment on it. I started a thread years ago about the dangers of moving the ability to make computer chips to China and USMB Republicans laughed and laughed and laughed. They believe "military chips" are "different". When I said the Military created a super computer from "game chips", they posted comment after comment mocking the idea. Even when it was reported all over the world, they didn't believe it. It couldn't be true.

Air Force Unveils Fastest Defense Supercomputer, Made of 1,760 PlayStation 3s | Popular Science

And poor Frank clings to that today. Doncha just love it?

Yeah Deany I like how you get that its directed at you.

It's directed at common sense and intelligence. Things you mock.

That's got to be it.

You left "pithy insights" off your lists of Rdean things I mock

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It is a tradition in the United States that Republicans take office, lower taxes, and create conditions for a recession/depression. The nation then elects Democrats to solve the economic recession/depression and once solved, they elect Republicans again. It's an economic cycle that most Americans forget or with new generations it doesn't seem to matter.

Do you think you can remember which party held Congress, when it was Mr. Clinton who "supposedly" was the one responsible for lowering the deficit and creating a stronger economy? Yet it's now the Republicans in the House and NOT Obama and his policies that are to blame for the worst recovery from a recession from ANY President tracing all the way back to World War II. We got to blame BUSH, and not look to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who held the House in 2006. The liberals had absolutely no involvement in this economic mess, they simply didn't get in the way.

Of course once Obama was in, there was no problem with Congress passing 1) a stimulus bill that equates to 7 years spent fighting two wars under President Bush (at a cost of $820 Billion), 2) the "tax holiday" to add more in workers paychecks in exchange for social security, 3) Cash for Clunkers, 4) the Chevy Volt government incentive, 4) Cash for Appliances, 5) picking which companies to support - like Solyndra, 5) Supporting unemployment extensions over a pipeline, and 6) Obamacare which was meant to be a HELP to the economy and never add to our national debt - right. This is to but name a few of this administrations economic "choices" right off the top of my head. However it's all been the house Republican's fault our economy is merely limping along, not the President's policies. NOW the solution is ... "we just didn't spend enough", so let's climb aboard and pursue the same hamster wheel we talked about since 2008.


I believe it's more than the economy which needs a recovery program, as it's quite obvious the left is still living in denial.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is a tradition in the United States that Republicans take office, lower taxes, and create conditions for a recession/depression. The nation then elects Democrats to solve the economic recession/depression and once solved, they elect Republicans again. It's an economic cycle that most Americans forget or with new generations it doesn't seem to matter.

Do you think you can remember which party held Congress, when it was Mr. Clinton who "supposedly" was the one responsible for lowering the deficit and creating a stronger economy? Yet it's now the Republicans in the House and NOT Obama and his policies that are to blame for the worst recovery from a recession from ANY President tracing all the way back to World War II. We got to blame BUSH, and not look to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who held the House in 2006. The liberals had absolutely no involvement in this economic mess, they simply didn't get in the way.

Of course once Obama was in, there was no problem with Congress passing 1) a stimulus bill that equates to 7 years spent fighting two wars under President Bush (at a cost of $820 Billion), 2) the "tax holiday" to add more in workers paychecks in exchange for social security, 3) Cash for Clunkers, 4) the Chevy Volt government incentive, 4) Cash for Appliances, 5) picking which companies to support - like Solyndra, and 5) Supporting unemployment extensions over a pipeline, 6) Obamacare which was meant to be a HELP to the economy and never add to our national debt. This is to but name a few of this administrations economic "choices" right off the top of my head. However it's all been the house Republican's fault our economy is merely limping along, not the President's policies. NOW the solution is ... "we just didn't spend enough", so let's climb aboard and pursue the same hamster wheel we talked about since 2008.


I believe it's more than the economy which needs a recovery program, as it's quite obvious the left is still living in denial.

In an ideal world Reagan would have Newt as Speaker of the House and Paul as Majority Leader

 

[regent]

At times in our history we have had one political party own the executive and another party the legislature and it seemed to work. Both parties had, in their own way, the goal of wanting the opposition party to fail but not the nation. During the Reagan administration both parties wanted the other to fail but not the government. Democrats and Republicans even worked together to improve Social Security etc.
This time, however, a large group of House members were elected with one goal: make Obama fail by making the government fail. Because of this goal we have had gridlock, government shut down, anything that can be created to make government fail and get rid of Obama.
Many Republicans, in office, know of this, "government must fail," goal and have spoken out, and more Americans may have to join them. To make Obama fail is nor worth making the nation fail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At times in our history we have had one political party own the executive and another party the legislature and it seemed to work. Both parties had, in their own way, the goal of wanting the opposition party to fail but not the nation. During the Reagan administration both parties wanted the other to fail but not the government. Democrats and Republicans even worked together to improve Social Security etc.
This time, however, a large group of House members were elected with one goal: make Obama fail by making the government fail. Because of this goal we have had gridlock, government shut down, anything that can be created to make government fail and get rid of Obama.
Many Republicans, in office, know of this, "government must fail," goal and have spoken out, and more Americans may have to join them. To make Obama fail is nor worth making the nation fail.

Do you think it might have something to do with POTUS refusing to even meet Republican Minority Leader in the Senate for the first 18 months of his Administration and calling Republicans "the enemy"?

nah

 

[regent]

At times in our history we have had one political party own the executive and another party the legislature and it seemed to work. Both parties had, in their own way, the goal of wanting the opposition party to fail but not the nation. During the Reagan administration both parties wanted the other to fail but not the government. Democrats and Republicans even worked together to improve Social Security etc.
This time, however, a large group of House members were elected with one goal: make Obama fail by making the government fail. Because of this goal we have had gridlock, government shut down, anything that can be created to make government fail and get rid of Obama.
Many Republicans, in office, know of this, "government must fail," goal and have spoken out, and more Americans may have to join them. To make Obama fail is nor worth making the nation fail.

Do you think it might have something to do with POTUS refusing to even meet Republican Minority Leader in the Senate for the first 18 months of his Administration and calling Republicans "the enemy"?

nah

It could be a lot of things but there is a difference between political hurt feelings and making the nation fail. Was it not the minority leader in that very Senate the announced the goal of the Republican party was to rid the nation of Obama?
The same goal that became the tea party goal and resulted in the various attempts to shut down America to achieve the ridding of Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

At times in our history we have had one political party own the executive and another party the legislature and it seemed to work. Both parties had, in their own way, the goal of wanting the opposition party to fail but not the nation. During the Reagan administration both parties wanted the other to fail but not the government. Democrats and Republicans even worked together to improve Social Security etc.
This time, however, a large group of House members were elected with one goal: make Obama fail by making the government fail. Because of this goal we have had gridlock, government shut down, anything that can be created to make government fail and get rid of Obama.
Many Republicans, in office, know of this, "government must fail," goal and have spoken out, and more Americans may have to join them. To make Obama fail is nor worth making the nation fail.

Do you think it might have something to do with POTUS refusing to even meet Republican Minority Leader in the Senate for the first 18 months of his Administration and calling Republicans "the enemy"?

nah

It could be a lot of things but there is a difference between political hurt feelings and making the nation fail. Was it not the minority leader in that very Senate the announced the goal of the Republican party was to rid the nation of Obama?
The same goal that became the tea party goal and resulted in the various attempts to shut down America to achieve the ridding of Obama.

1) He did not announce that as his goal.
2) Mom, he did it first, doesnt pass muster on the school yard, much less in gov't.

Has Obama ever foregone an opportunity to demonize Republicans as the Enemy, as haters, as incompetents, as racists, as enemies of black people/poor people etc? No, I dont think so.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

At times in our history we have had one political party own the executive and another party the legislature and it seemed to work. Both parties had, in their own way, the goal of wanting the opposition party to fail but not the nation. During the Reagan administration both parties wanted the other to fail but not the government. Democrats and Republicans even worked together to improve Social Security etc.
This time, however, a large group of House members were elected with one goal: make Obama fail by making the government fail. Because of this goal we have had gridlock, government shut down, anything that can be created to make government fail and get rid of Obama.
Many Republicans, in office, know of this, "government must fail," goal and have spoken out, and more Americans may have to join them. To make Obama fail is nor worth making the nation fail.

You act as if there had never been a government shutdown over a gridlock between two parties unable to compromise? As if the "playing politics" over the need of the nation has never been done before? You may care to look into the 1995 Shutdown, between Clinton's 11 year plan towards a balanced budget (which didn't cut enough) and leaving the Republicans the more difficult task to find ways to cut deeper in order to do the same in 6 years. President Clinton knew how to play politics, to try to get Republicans to make those cuts Clinton wasn't serious enough to make.