Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP

[kaz]

Welfare is not "stimulus to the economy." You people are pathetic

The money went from the government and yes some went to poor people. That money went directly into the economy

Now, guess what happens when we give money to the wealthy?
They pocket it

Wow... you mean no jobs are ever created by people with money???? How do the poor create jobs man???

Not so many when the country is in a deep recession. Then it's good for the government to step in and bridge the gap until the recession ends. Otherwise we risk a depression.

Governments Cause depressions they dont fix them.

The Government saved the private sector from its own greed during the Great Bush Recession of 2008

Government forced banks to make subprime loans and funded them with endless, free money. Then the collapse began and was fueled by the collapse of the subprime market. You can repeat your mindless leftist drivel all you want, but the facts contradict it.

Government took money from the economy and propped up it's own mess, then claimed it somehow saved the economy. And the mindless drones who's minds and manhood are owned by government blindly parroted their lies.

The last one was you, bug guy. I figured you missed that with your being, let's say "slow" and all

 

[Redfish]

What policy did Obama have that was different from W's policies?

Glad you asked

Obama passed a stimulus that infused $800 billion into the economy. He made it clear that the U.S. Government would not allow the banks and auto industry to fail. He passed solid financial reform and demanded auto companies close unprofitable brands and give the taxpayer stock in their company

That is what he did differently and the economic collapse reversed

the 800 billion was borrowed from China, increasing the national debt and making us more of China's bitch. The auto bailout was to save the UAW and its contributions to the DNC, obozo didn't give a shit about the auto companies, their shareholders, or their employees.

a structured bankruptcy would have been much better for everyone except the UAW. Know why? because there would have been new smaller companies formed and each new company would have to have a union representation vote, obozo and the unions could not take that risk. THAT is what the auto "bailout" was all about.

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the expected response to an economic collapse. FDR did it. Reagan did it.

There was no structured bankruptcy available to the auto companies. The U.S. government was the only game in town.

Newer, smaller companies were not an option. Nobody would provide them financing....the banks were collapsing

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush lied

Then so did the Democrats

Let's apportion the blame, shall we?
Is it 50% Democrat/50% Republucan?

Bush, as commander in chief, was the decider
He gathered intelligence, developed a plan, asked permission from Congress and then made the ultimate decision to invade. 90% is on Bush

Congress, as most Congresses do, supported the commander in chief. 60 percent of the vote was Republican, 40% Democratic

That gives us 96% of the blame on Republicans, 4% on Democrats

more partisan bullshit, is that all you have?

Show me otherwise

How would you apportion the blame?

50/50, they all said the same things, did the same things, voted for the same things.

Or, is it your position that the dems were too stupid and gullible to understand the truth?

Because they either came to the same erroneous conclusions that Bush did OR they were too stupid to see otherwise.

You lose once again and I gave you a chance to be honest

Only one party controlled the White House and the CiC ordered the invasion. Worst blunder in 50 years

 

[rcfieldz]

Rise of The Bully Machine.

 

[rightwinger]

I did not believe him.....neither did Obama

Congress was too weak to stand up to the President in post 9-11 America. Nobody wanted to be called weak on terror

Bush knew that and exploited it

You didn't believe the Democrats, now that's funny

Bush lied

Yes he did....and Obama speaks only the truth...

Obama was right about Iraq

Bush got his ass handed to him

Trump was opposed to Iraq, Hillary supported it and voted to keep funding it.

need we say more?

Trump lied about his opposition to Iraq. There is no record of him opposing it. There is a record of him on Howard Stern saying he supported it

 

[rightwinger]

The money went from the government and yes some went to poor people. That money went directly into the economy

Now, guess what happens when we give money to the wealthy?
They pocket it

Wow... you mean no jobs are ever created by people with money???? How do the poor create jobs man???

Not so many when the country is in a deep recession. Then it's good for the government to step in and bridge the gap until the recession ends. Otherwise we risk a depression.

Governments Cause depressions they dont fix them.

The Government saved the private sector from its own greed during the Great Bush Recession of 2008

Government forced banks to make subprime loans and funded them with endless, free money. Then the collapse began and was fueled by the collapse of the subprime market. You can repeat your mindless leftist drivel all you want, but the facts contradict it.

Government took money from the economy and propped up it's own mess, then claimed it somehow saved the economy. And the mindless drones who's minds and manhood are owned by government blindly parroted their lies.

The last one was you, bug guy. I figured you missed that with your being, let's say "slow" and all

More myth over substance

 

[Redfish]

Then so did the Democrats

Let's apportion the blame, shall we?
Is it 50% Democrat/50% Republucan?

Bush, as commander in chief, was the decider
He gathered intelligence, developed a plan, asked permission from Congress and then made the ultimate decision to invade. 90% is on Bush

Congress, as most Congresses do, supported the commander in chief. 60 percent of the vote was Republican, 40% Democratic

That gives us 96% of the blame on Republicans, 4% on Democrats

more partisan bullshit, is that all you have?

Show me otherwise

How would you apportion the blame?

50/50, they all said the same things, did the same things, voted for the same things.

Or, is it your position that the dems were too stupid and gullible to understand the truth?

Because they either came to the same erroneous conclusions that Bush did OR they were too stupid to see otherwise.

You lose once again and I gave you a chance to be honest

Only one party controlled the White House and the CiC ordered the invasion. Worst blunder in 50 years

Did Hillary and other dems vote to authorize and fund the Iraq fiasco? yes or no

 

[Redfish]

You didn't believe the Democrats, now that's funny

Bush lied

Yes he did....and Obama speaks only the truth...

Obama was right about Iraq

Bush got his ass handed to him

Trump was opposed to Iraq, Hillary supported it and voted to keep funding it.

need we say more?

Trump lied about his opposition to Iraq. There is no record of him opposing it. There is a record of him on Howard Stern saying he supported it

Care to post some of Hillary's quotes where she supported it and said that it was clear that Saddam had WMDs and he had to be stopped? you can also post bubba's quotes saying the same things if you have the guts to be honest for once.

 

[kaz]

Welfare is not "stimulus to the economy." You people are pathetic

The money went from the government and yes some went to poor people. That money went directly into the economy

Now, guess what happens when we give money to the wealthy?
They pocket it

Wow... you mean no jobs are ever created by people with money???? How do the poor create jobs man???

During the Great Bush Recession of 2008, people with money were cashing out
The Government was the only one willing to invest in a crashing economy

Thats Odd since the recession happened at the end of the Bush admin when the democrats took office and started helping the people???? Funny how one always follows the other isn't it?

Lol how convenient you blame the democrats even though there is no cause by the entering of their power. You people in your faux causations. Bush's tax cuts were supposed to create "millions of job" yet they didn't create shit and the Great Recession happened anyway.

You morons blame W for a recession that started six months ... before ... he took office. LOL

 

[rightwinger]

Glad you asked

Obama passed a stimulus that infused $800 billion into the economy. He made it clear that the U.S. Government would not allow the banks and auto industry to fail. He passed solid financial reform and demanded auto companies close unprofitable brands and give the taxpayer stock in their company

That is what he did differently and the economic collapse reversed

the 800 billion was borrowed from China, increasing the national debt and making us more of China's bitch. The auto bailout was to save the UAW and its contributions to the DNC, obozo didn't give a shit about the auto companies, their shareholders, or their employees.

a structured bankruptcy would have been much better for everyone except the UAW. Know why? because there would have been new smaller companies formed and each new company would have to have a union representation vote, obozo and the unions could not take that risk. THAT is what the auto "bailout" was all about.

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the expected response to an economic collapse. FDR did it. Reagan did it.

There was no structured bankruptcy available to the auto companies. The U.S. government was the only game in town.

Newer, smaller companies were not an option. Nobody would provide them financing....the banks were collapsing

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

When you are in an economic collapse, you borrow money to infuse money into the economy. If you lost your job, do you choose that time to pay off your mortgage? That is what Republicans wanted to do

 

[kaz]

The money went from the government and yes some went to poor people. That money went directly into the economy

Now, guess what happens when we give money to the wealthy?
They pocket it

Wow... you mean no jobs are ever created by people with money???? How do the poor create jobs man???

During the Great Bush Recession of 2008, people with money were cashing out
The Government was the only one willing to invest in a crashing economy

Thats Odd since the recession happened at the end of the Bush admin when the democrats took office and started helping the people???? Funny how one always follows the other isn't it?

Lol how convenient you blame the democrats even though there is no cause by the entering of their power. You people in your faux causations. Bush's tax cuts were supposed to create "millions of job" yet they didn't create shit and the Great Recession happened anyway.

Bush's Tax Cuts created millions of jobs in China and India...no lie.

Millions? LOL. Liberals and economics just don't mix, what a dumb ass

 

[kaz]

the 800 billion was borrowed from China, increasing the national debt and making us more of China's bitch. The auto bailout was to save the UAW and its contributions to the DNC, obozo didn't give a shit about the auto companies, their shareholders, or their employees.

a structured bankruptcy would have been much better for everyone except the UAW. Know why? because there would have been new smaller companies formed and each new company would have to have a union representation vote, obozo and the unions could not take that risk. THAT is what the auto "bailout" was all about.

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the expected response to an economic collapse. FDR did it. Reagan did it.

There was no structured bankruptcy available to the auto companies. The U.S. government was the only game in town.

Newer, smaller companies were not an option. Nobody would provide them financing....the banks were collapsing

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

When you are in an economic collapse, you borrow money to infuse money into the economy. If you lost your job, do you choose that time to pay off your mortgage? That is what Republicans wanted to do

No, when you lose your job, you don't go out and run up your credit card to infuse economic activity in your home, you cut back

 

[rightwinger]

Glad you asked

Obama passed a stimulus that infused $800 billion into the economy. He made it clear that the U.S. Government would not allow the banks and auto industry to fail. He passed solid financial reform and demanded auto companies close unprofitable brands and give the taxpayer stock in their company

That is what he did differently and the economic collapse reversed

the 800 billion was borrowed from China, increasing the national debt and making us more of China's bitch. The auto bailout was to save the UAW and its contributions to the DNC, obozo didn't give a shit about the auto companies, their shareholders, or their employees.

a structured bankruptcy would have been much better for everyone except the UAW. Know why? because there would have been new smaller companies formed and each new company would have to have a union representation vote, obozo and the unions could not take that risk. THAT is what the auto "bailout" was all about.

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the expected response to an economic collapse. FDR did it. Reagan did it.

There was no structured bankruptcy available to the auto companies. The U.S. government was the only game in town.

Newer, smaller companies were not an option. Nobody would provide them financing....the banks were collapsing

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

2&3

What you propose applies to most bankruptcies where the economy is orherwise sound.
Obama looked for investors to prop up our auto companies. They all wanted no part of it. Banks were failing, they had no interest in risky investments.
Obama was the only game in town. Obamamotors saved our auto industries

 

[Redfish]

the 800 billion was borrowed from China, increasing the national debt and making us more of China's bitch. The auto bailout was to save the UAW and its contributions to the DNC, obozo didn't give a shit about the auto companies, their shareholders, or their employees.

a structured bankruptcy would have been much better for everyone except the UAW. Know why? because there would have been new smaller companies formed and each new company would have to have a union representation vote, obozo and the unions could not take that risk. THAT is what the auto "bailout" was all about.

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the expected response to an economic collapse. FDR did it. Reagan did it.

There was no structured bankruptcy available to the auto companies. The U.S. government was the only game in town.

Newer, smaller companies were not an option. Nobody would provide them financing....the banks were collapsing

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

When you are in an economic collapse, you borrow money to infuse money into the economy. If you lost your job, do you choose that time to pay off your mortgage? That is what Republicans wanted to do

So, if you lose your job you are going to go borrow money from a loan shark in order to make your mortgage payments?

the dem thought process: I'm in debt so I'm going to borrow money from my potential enemy to pay the interest on it. Damn, but you libs are stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the expected response to an economic collapse. FDR did it. Reagan did it.

There was no structured bankruptcy available to the auto companies. The U.S. government was the only game in town.

Newer, smaller companies were not an option. Nobody would provide them financing....the banks were collapsing

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

When you are in an economic collapse, you borrow money to infuse money into the economy. If you lost your job, do you choose that time to pay off your mortgage? That is what Republicans wanted to do

No, when you lose your job, you don't go out and run up your credit card to infuse economic activity in your home, you cut back

Actually, that is exactly what you do

 

[Redfish]

the 800 billion was borrowed from China, increasing the national debt and making us more of China's bitch. The auto bailout was to save the UAW and its contributions to the DNC, obozo didn't give a shit about the auto companies, their shareholders, or their employees.

a structured bankruptcy would have been much better for everyone except the UAW. Know why? because there would have been new smaller companies formed and each new company would have to have a union representation vote, obozo and the unions could not take that risk. THAT is what the auto "bailout" was all about.

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the expected response to an economic collapse. FDR did it. Reagan did it.

There was no structured bankruptcy available to the auto companies. The U.S. government was the only game in town.

Newer, smaller companies were not an option. Nobody would provide them financing....the banks were collapsing

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

2&3

What you propose applies to most bankruptcies where the economy is orherwise sound.
Obama looked for investors to prop up our auto companies. They all wanted no part of it. Banks were failing, they had no interest in risky investments.
Obama was the only game in town. Obamamotors saved our auto industries

your lunacy is consistent, gotta give you that.

 

[Redfish]

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

When you are in an economic collapse, you borrow money to infuse money into the economy. If you lost your job, do you choose that time to pay off your mortgage? That is what Republicans wanted to do

No, when you lose your job, you don't go out and run up your credit card to infuse economic activity in your home, you cut back

Actually, that is exactly what you do

no, that's what insane people and criminals do.

 

[Redfish]

the 800 billion was borrowed from China, increasing the national debt and making us more of China's bitch. The auto bailout was to save the UAW and its contributions to the DNC, obozo didn't give a shit about the auto companies, their shareholders, or their employees.

a structured bankruptcy would have been much better for everyone except the UAW. Know why? because there would have been new smaller companies formed and each new company would have to have a union representation vote, obozo and the unions could not take that risk. THAT is what the auto "bailout" was all about.

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy is the expected response to an economic collapse. FDR did it. Reagan did it.

There was no structured bankruptcy available to the auto companies. The U.S. government was the only game in town.

Newer, smaller companies were not an option. Nobody would provide them financing....the banks were collapsing

nothing in your post is true. not a word of it.

Go for it
Point by point

Ok

1. borrowing money (increasing the national debt) has never created prosperity. FDR extended the depression, and as you libs constantly remind us, it didn't work when Reagan did it

2. structured bankruptcy was a very viable option. the car companies had billions in fixed assets that could have been used to secure low interest loans.

3. wrong again, breaking a huge inefficient corporation into smaller more fiscally sound units is a normal outcome of a bankruptcy. Wall street would have been begging for those accounts.

This was only done to save the UAW and keep its money flowing to the DNC, anyone who cant see that is either naïve or just plain stupid.

2&3

What you propose applies to most bankruptcies where the economy is orherwise sound.
Obama looked for investors to prop up our auto companies. They all wanted no part of it. Banks were failing, they had no interest in risky investments.
Obama was the only game in town. Obamamotors saved our auto industries

bullshit, it used taxpayer dollars to save the UAW.

 

[kaz]

Glad you asked

Obama passed a stimulus that infused $800 billion into the economy. He made it clear that the U.S. Government would not allow the banks and auto industry to fail. He passed solid financial reform and demanded auto companies close unprofitable brands and give the taxpayer stock in their company

That is what he did differently and the economic collapse reversed

Obama spent 800 billion on a "stimulus" to create jobs that created so few jobs that in desperation they invented a new economic statistic..."jobs created or saved"...to hide how bad it was! Take off your partisan blinders, Winger...you're looking increasingly ignorant in this string!

They did not invent that term to hide anything as that term was presented in the plan before it was even approved.

Show me where that economic statistic was employed by any other administration prior to the Obama Administration, Faun!

They invented that statistic not to give a clearer picture of job creation...they invented it to hide how few jobs they actually managed to create with the 870 billion that they spent. I know you folks on the left don't like to admit that...but it's about as obvious as it gets!

Preventing teachers, cops and firemen from being laid off has the same economic impact as creating a new job

Since you pay for teachers, cops and firemen with revenue taken from the Private Sector that isn't the case at all.

The whole "jobs created or saved" statistic that the Obama Administration created was never about giving an accurate picture of what the stimulus had done...it was always about hiding how bad the stimulus was at creating jobs. Once again, Winger...show me any other previous Administration that used that statistic!

Liberals think you can fill a pool by taking a bucket of water out of the pool, dumping half out (bureaucracy) and putting what's left back in the pool. Yes, they are that dumb

 

[kaz]

I didn't see where any of Bush's timid economic actions had any effect

When Obama took office, the stock market was still in collapse, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month and GDP was negative...auto and banks were collapsing

Obama took solid action and reversed all that

What policy did Obama have that was different from W's policies?

Glad you asked

Obama passed a stimulus that infused $800 billion into the economy. He made it clear that the U.S. Government would not allow the banks and auto industry to fail. He passed solid financial reform and demanded auto companies close unprofitable brands and give the taxpayer stock in their company

That is what he did differently and the economic collapse reversed

Obama spent 800 billion on a "stimulus" to create jobs that created so few jobs that in desperation they invented a new economic statistic..."jobs created or saved"...to hide how bad it was! Take off your partisan blinders, Winger...you're looking increasingly ignorant in this string!

They did not invent that term to hide anything as that term was presented in the plan before it was even approved.

Show me where the economic statistic "jobs created or saved" was in the Obama Stimulus before it was approved! You've made that claim several times now...so back it up.

Yeah, that's not happening ...