The GOP is desperate for a failing economy......sic

Which point? That Dubya.GOP policy left US in the biggest hole since Harding/Coolidge great depression, and GOP has worked against US/Obama from day one?
tumblr_nqxud2TJDb1qg05sbo1_1280.jpg


How funny :blowup:just spreading the love ain't he (please note the sarcasm).


Remember when Greenspan went in front of the GOP Congress in 2001, to support Dubya's tax cuts, because we were in danger of paying down the debt to fast under Clinton policies?

Heritage said the 2001 tax cuts would actually create so much economic activity, it would pay off the debt by 2010 though.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES?? lol
Uh, Greenspan warned Congress long before the crash what they were doing was not sustainable. You going to blame Bush on all the lying banksters too? Why not put it back on where the problem truly lies. Start looking at where those banksters got their education. I'm wondering does MIT endorse fraud in those higher education classes. Is that like the norm of their professors there or what?

"Uh, Greenspan warned Congress long before the crash what they were doing was not sustainable"



WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU DENY HE WENT IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IN 2001 TO SUPPORT GUTTING REVENUES VIA DUBYA'S TAX CUTS?


BANKSTERS LEARNED THEIR FRAUD FROM UNIVERSITIES? LOL

Hint Dubya WAS warned


FBI saw threat of loan crisis

"It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

DUBYA GUTTED 1,800+ FROM THE WHITE COLLAR CRIME DIV INSTEAD!



FBI saw threat of loan crisis

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!
Bush is gone you'll have to find another excuse.

Predatory lending came by way of claiming a good thing would ensue for the poor. The fact is that it was just one more way to tax the poor by using and abusing the people money to get it all started.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-005.pdf

By the time the the late 90's hit prime bankers had sold so many bad loans it was starting to take out the banking industry but it did not fully hit until 2008. (big wheels move slow)

You really are not worth trying to educate on the matter so I'll pass on posting all the links for you.



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment bank;s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments (per year 2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.





"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.





Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
hud meltdown of the 1970's - Google Search

farm crisis of the 1970's - Google Search

Worked in the 1970's, just a rerun in the late 1990's into 2008.

SURE BUBBA, SURE



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

>

The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


Subprime_mortgage_originations,_1996-2008.GIF
 
hud meltdown of the 1970's - Google Search

farm crisis of the 1970's - Google Search

Worked in the 1970's, just a rerun in the late 1990's into 2008.

Sorry, I forgot


Subprime_mortgage_originations,_1996-2008.GIF


THAT WAS ON CLINTON'S SHOULDERS *SHAKING HEAD*


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
 
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!
 
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol
 
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?
 
(sigh)....sometimes as american's we have to shake our heads in complete and total disbelief of a party, ie the GOP-igs who refuse to work with the president to get shit done for this country, simply because??????. Is it because they're against his policies, is it because they have a better direction or is it because anything that brings success to this black president with unilateral cooperation is a death sentence to these nuts back home with their supporters????

I'm am absolutely amazed when I hear these neo nuts whine about our economy, which started off in the double digits and now lingers at almost 4%. I am amazed at how these morons don't mind spending yet more trillions overseas to fight a war, WE WILL NEVER WIN, but will speak on the poor getting a couple a hundred to eat.

Now these morons are desperate to find the perfect fool, ie House Leader, who not only won't work with Obama, who not only will sanction their already lame dismal congressional record of 0% effectiveness thus far this year, but who will try his or her best to derail the successes of the OBama administration, because....PUTTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST IS A FOREIGN ENTITY TO NUTS WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.

God please help save this country from the GOP Trash heap, and their ignorant supporters, please!!
We already have a failing economy you moron.
 
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
 
Dad, don't whine...it doesn't suit you.

The math is sound, and only Obama and librrsls are responible for Obama's $6+ Trillion in 4 years.

No one is saying the GOP had little to do with the economy under Obama AFTER the GOP took the House and the Senate last year. On the contrary, after having NO BUDGET for YEARS under DEMOCTATS, after the GOP took over the purse string again, record-setting deficit-spending has stopped, and annual budgets have finally been balanced / somewhat been reduced. Way to go, Conservatives!
 
(sigh)....sometimes as american's we have to shake our heads in complete and total disbelief of a party, ie the GOP-igs who refuse to work with the president to get shit done for this country, simply because??????. Is it because they're against his policies, is it because they have a better direction or is it because anything that brings success to this black president with unilateral cooperation is a death sentence to these nuts back home with their supporters????

I'm am absolutely amazed when I hear these neo nuts whine about our economy, which started off in the double digits and now lingers at almost 4%. I am amazed at how these morons don't mind spending yet more trillions overseas to fight a war, WE WILL NEVER WIN, but will speak on the poor getting a couple a hundred to eat.

Now these morons are desperate to find the perfect fool, ie House Leader, who not only won't work with Obama, who not only will sanction their already lame dismal congressional record of 0% effectiveness thus far this year, but who will try his or her best to derail the successes of the OBama administration, because....PUTTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST IS A FOREIGN ENTITY TO NUTS WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.

God please help save this country from the GOP Trash heap, and their ignorant supporters, please!!
We already have a failing economy you moron.

Sure.

images
 
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.
 
Dad, don't whine...it doesn't suit you.

The math is sound, and only Obama and librrsls are responible for Obama's $6+ Trillion in 4 years.

No one is saying the GOP had little to do with the economy under Obama AFTER the GOP took the House and the Senate last year. On the contrary, after having NO BUDGET for YEARS under DEMOCTATS, after the GOP took over the purse string again, record-setting deficit-spending has stopped, and annual budgets have finally been balanced / somewhat been reduced. Way to go, Conservatives!


BUDGETS ARE BALANCED? lol

Dubya's final F/Y budget ends

US DEBT

09/30/2009, 11,909,829,003,511.75 ($11.8+ TRILLION)
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
 
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.


Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?
 
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's
:wtf:Is wrong with liberal nut jobs like the one who started this thread? They have the memory of a goldfish...

Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but their own!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!


CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.


Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?

They don't control a thing unless the Senate takes it up. You do know it takes both houses?
 
(sigh)....sometimes as american's we have to shake our heads in complete and total disbelief of a party, ie the GOP-igs who refuse to work with the president to get shit done for this country, simply because??????. Is it because they're against his policies, is it because they have a better direction or is it because anything that brings success to this black president with unilateral cooperation is a death sentence to these nuts back home with their supporters????

I'm am absolutely amazed when I hear these neo nuts whine about our economy, which started off in the double digits and now lingers at almost 4%. I am amazed at how these morons don't mind spending yet more trillions overseas to fight a war, WE WILL NEVER WIN, but will speak on the poor getting a couple a hundred to eat.

Now these morons are desperate to find the perfect fool, ie House Leader, who not only won't work with Obama, who not only will sanction their already lame dismal congressional record of 0% effectiveness thus far this year, but who will try his or her best to derail the successes of the OBama administration, because....PUTTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST IS A FOREIGN ENTITY TO NUTS WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.

God please help save this country from the GOP Trash heap, and their ignorant supporters, please!!
We already have a failing economy you moron.

Sure.

images
No rebuttal. You must be a democrat.
 
CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

You really are stupid.

The Republicans took the House in 2011. That's
CONservative "logic", Dems are responsible for Dubya's final 2 years, but the GOP Congress for the final 6 years of Obama, have zero culpability, it's 100% on Obama *shaking head*

Like usual, you're using GOP/CONservative "math" and reasoning Bubba


THE POLICY THE DEMS GAVE US THAT CHANGED DUBYA'S POLICIES 2007-JAN 2009 PLEASE? lol

What GOP Congress for Obama's 6 years? The Democrats held the Senate until less than a year ago. What Obama did began from day 1 when he had both houses.

You can't get enough of kissing black ass can you?

So NO you CAN'T give ANY policies the Dems passed Jan 2007-Jan 2009 that changed Dubya's policies

GOP will have had the House for 6 of Obama's 8 years and the Senate for 4..



LOL

Day 1 on Obama? Oh when he was blocked on almost EVERYTHING as the US economy was tanking?


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority


A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than 400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.


Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

I've figured out why you support Liberal policies. You can't support the three kids you have and want someone else to do it for you.


Yep, GOP took the House for the last 6 years of Obama. Weird they control the spending right?

They don't control a thing unless the Senate takes it up. You do know it takes both houses?

Oh right NOT like the Prez can veto or anything right? lol

HINT PREZ POLICY IS #1 . Whether it's Ronnie, Clinton, Dubya or Obama! Regardless of which party has Congress. HONESTY. Try it ONCE!
 
No, dad, NOT weird. As a result, the record-setting deficit-spending ended, no more massive debt was added to the $6 trillion in new debt added on by Obama, and the annual budgets became balanced...which Obama has tried to take credit for.

The GOP says, 'YOU'RE WELCOME', Dad! :p
 

Forum List

Back
Top