Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Obama's yet to pass a tax "cut" (tax credits or exemptions maybe) and he's spent a lot in defense because he doesn't really know what he's doing.Here is a no bullshit assessment about what exactly the debt under Obama is composed of. As you can see Obama's biggest expenses were his TAX CUTS and defense spending - policies republicans love.
US Debt by PresidentPresident Barack Obama - The second largest contributor to the debt dollar-wise was President Obama. He added $4.8 trillion, a 41% increase, in just one term. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings didn't show up until the later years.
Of course, all this being said, I do agree Obama has spent too much on defense and he shouldn't have extended Bush's tax cuts. My point is that Repubs are ignorant about what exactly Obama's expenses are.
Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.
Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.
Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?
How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.
As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.
And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.
You pointed out that this recovery has taken longer than others but you're comparing the recession to others as though they are all the same. That begs the question I asked. Seems you don't want to answer it.Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.
Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.
Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?
How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.
As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.
I see no reason to believe what I said would lead you to your question. It therefore makes as much sense to answer it as for you to answer the question "Do you believe the shallower a recession, the longer it should take to recover?".
And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.
It's more sane than the idea of installing Mrs Bubba in the White House and giving Mr Bubba another set of years to use the least powerful women in the office for his selfish sexual pleasure.
But then what can I expect from someone willing to vote for a dog?You pointed out that this recovery has taken longer than others but you're comparing the recession to others as though they are all the same. That begs the question I asked. Seems you don't want to answer it.Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.
Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.
Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?
How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.
As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.
I see no reason to believe what I said would lead you to your question. It therefore makes as much sense to answer it as for you to answer the question "Do you believe the shallower a recession, the longer it should take to recover?".
And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.
It's more sane than the idea of installing Mrs Bubba in the White House and giving Mr Bubba another set of years to use the least powerful women in the office for his selfish sexual pleasure.
Oh, and the answer to your question is .... no.
There is no recovery. SUb 3% growth coming out of a recession is not recovery. It's stagnation.You pointed out that this recovery has taken longer than others but you're comparing the recession to others as though they are all the same. That begs the question I asked. Seems you don't want to answer it.Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.
Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.
Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?
How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.
As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.
I see no reason to believe what I said would lead you to your question. It therefore makes as much sense to answer it as for you to answer the question "Do you believe the shallower a recession, the longer it should take to recover?".
And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.
It's more sane than the idea of installing Mrs Bubba in the White House and giving Mr Bubba another set of years to use the least powerful women in the office for his selfish sexual pleasure.
Oh, and the answer to your question is .... no.
You rightards are too funny. Bush hands Obama a broken economy with a trillion dollar deficit and here you are complaining Obama's increased the debt too much. Had Bush handed Obama a $17 billion deficit like Clinton handed Bush, perhaps then Obama would have added only $5 trillion to the debt like Bush did.Hmm, debt was $5.6T when Bush took over.
Debt was $10T when Obama took over.
It is over $17T now.
Bush added less than 5 trillion dollars in eight years.
Obama added 7 trillion dollars in six years.
Looks like Obama wins Biggest Spender of All Time award.
What was Billy Nothing bleating about?
The economy was recovering when Obama became president? WTF???You rightards are too funny. Bush hands Obama a broken economy with a trillion dollar deficit and here you are complaining Obama's increased the debt too much. Had Bush handed Obama a $17 billion deficit like Clinton handed Bush, perhaps then Obama would have added only $5 trillion to the debt like Bush did.Hmm, debt was $5.6T when Bush took over.
Debt was $10T when Obama took over.
It is over $17T now.
Bush added less than 5 trillion dollars in eight years.
Obama added 7 trillion dollars in six years.
Looks like Obama wins Biggest Spender of All Time award.
What was Billy Nothing bleating about?
It's a hoot to see how far you can stretch facts and truth to accommodate your silly meme.
First, Obama inherited a recovering economy, by definition, since the recession ended 6 months after he took the oath, owing as much to the TARP as anything Obama did policy wise. No one forced Obama to appropriate needless " Stimulus" spending or focus on adding another muli-trillion entitlement as his top priority, which killed the recovery by mid 2010.
Obama also resisted any pro -business and pro growth policies in favor of his redistributionist policies and massive new regulations, new taxes, and a failure to address needed entitlement reforms. All of which killed the recovery while locking in structural Euro-style unemployment, while the dutifully complaint Federal Reserve rewarded the owners of capital ( stocks) at the expense of labor.
That's your " trickle down " demand-side, neo-Keynesian economic policy results. The next poor POTUS will deal with rising interest rates which will cause the deficit and debt to explode.
There is no such schedule.You pointed out that this recovery has taken longer than others but you're comparing the recession to others as though they are all the same. That begs the question I asked. Seems you don't want to answer it.Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.
Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.
Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?
How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.
As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.
I see no reason to believe what I said would lead you to your question. It therefore makes as much sense to answer it as for you to answer the question "Do you believe the shallower a recession, the longer it should take to recover?".
And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.
It's more sane than the idea of installing Mrs Bubba in the White House and giving Mr Bubba another set of years to use the least powerful women in the office for his selfish sexual pleasure.
Oh, and the answer to your question is .... no.
Of course all recessions are not alike. Tell you what, why don't you tell us how long you think it should take for us to recover from the last one?
Here is a no bullshit assessment about what exactly the debt under Obama is composed of. As you can see Obama's biggest expenses were his TAX CUTS and defense spending - policies republicans love.
US Debt by PresidentPresident Barack Obama - The second largest contributor to the debt dollar-wise was President Obama. He added $4.8 trillion, a 41% increase, in just one term. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings didn't show up until the later years.
Of course, all this being said, I do agree Obama has spent too much on defense and he shouldn't have extended Bush's tax cuts. My point is that Repubs are ignorant about what exactly Obama's expenses are.
Holyshit! Something which hasn't happened is "fact?"Here is a no bullshit assessment about what exactly the debt under Obama is composed of. As you can see Obama's biggest expenses were his TAX CUTS and defense spending - policies republicans love.
US Debt by PresidentPresident Barack Obama - The second largest contributor to the debt dollar-wise was President Obama. He added $4.8 trillion, a 41% increase, in just one term. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings didn't show up until the later years.
Of course, all this being said, I do agree Obama has spent too much on defense and he shouldn't have extended Bush's tax cuts. My point is that Repubs are ignorant about what exactly Obama's expenses are.
national debt when obama took office 10T
national debt today 17T
national debt when obama leaves office 20T
obama will have added more to the debt than all previous presidents COMBINED. Spin all you like, that is the fact.
There is no such schedule.You pointed out that this recovery has taken longer than others but you're comparing the recession to others as though they are all the same. That begs the question I asked. Seems you don't want to answer it.Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.
Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.
Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?
How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.
As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.
I see no reason to believe what I said would lead you to your question. It therefore makes as much sense to answer it as for you to answer the question "Do you believe the shallower a recession, the longer it should take to recover?".
And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.
It's more sane than the idea of installing Mrs Bubba in the White House and giving Mr Bubba another set of years to use the least powerful women in the office for his selfish sexual pleasure.
Oh, and the answer to your question is .... no.
Of course all recessions are not alike. Tell you what, why don't you tell us how long you think it should take for us to recover from the last one?
All recessions being different means there is no standard for recoveries.There is no such schedule.You pointed out that this recovery has taken longer than others but you're comparing the recession to others as though they are all the same. That begs the question I asked. Seems you don't want to answer it.Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.
Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.
Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?
How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.
As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.
I see no reason to believe what I said would lead you to your question. It therefore makes as much sense to answer it as for you to answer the question "Do you believe the shallower a recession, the longer it should take to recover?".
And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.
It's more sane than the idea of installing Mrs Bubba in the White House and giving Mr Bubba another set of years to use the least powerful women in the office for his selfish sexual pleasure.
Oh, and the answer to your question is .... no.
Of course all recessions are not alike. Tell you what, why don't you tell us how long you think it should take for us to recover from the last one?
So you admit you have no standing to tell me I'm being impatient with the slow pace of recovery?
This one has been going on for 6 years. It will continue until the day a Republican takes office.All recessions being different means there is no standard for recoveries.
You're delusional if you think a Republican will become president and magically fix it. Let me remind you a Republican was in office when the economy cratered.This one has been going on for 6 years. It will continue until the day a Republican takes office.All recessions being different means there is no standard for recoveries.
Libs are such saps.
The worst recovery post war ever. Worst workforce participation since Carter. Most stagnant middle class wages ever. Most stagnant household wealth ever.
Dem policies are a complete disaster, a total failure. If Obama had played golf for 6 years instead of trying to get crap passed we would be in a far better position.
Yup. And that right there is the sad truth.Republicans control the House of Representatives. They write the budget and have been complicit with this administration's reckless spending spree. Furthermore, few of them said anything when Bush was running up the debt, particularly due to the cost of his warmongering.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats have been a fiscally responsible party, but at the end of the day they are simply a reflection of the American people, who are also not fiscally responsible in their own personal affairs.
Remind me how it was Bush's fault.You're delusional if you think a Republican will become president and magically fix it. Let me remind you a Republican was in office when the economy cratered.This one has been going on for 6 years. It will continue until the day a Republican takes office.All recessions being different means there is no standard for recoveries.
Libs are such saps.
The worst recovery post war ever. Worst workforce participation since Carter. Most stagnant middle class wages ever. Most stagnant household wealth ever.
Dem policies are a complete disaster, a total failure. If Obama had played golf for 6 years instead of trying to get crap passed we would be in a far better position.
Of course, 12 years of Republicans controlling the House, 10½ years of Republicans controlling the Senate, and 8 years controlling the executive branch; had nothing to do with the economy when it crashed.Remind me how it was Bush's fault.You're delusional if you think a Republican will become president and magically fix it. Let me remind you a Republican was in office when the economy cratered.This one has been going on for 6 years. It will continue until the day a Republican takes office.All recessions being different means there is no standard for recoveries.
Libs are such saps.
The worst recovery post war ever. Worst workforce participation since Carter. Most stagnant middle class wages ever. Most stagnant household wealth ever.
Dem policies are a complete disaster, a total failure. If Obama had played golf for 6 years instead of trying to get crap passed we would be in a far better position.
Six years and you repeat the same bullshit time aftert ime hoping it will stick.
The facts are plain: Worst economy despite spending the most money. Highest regulatory count ever. Most money conned out of businesses for essentially doing nothing ever.
This is the most anti business administration in history. They are a virtual kleptocracy. It is no wonder no one wants to expand or start a business here. It is suicide.
You failed completely. Democrats controlled the House for 2years prior to the crash. But anyway, so what? What did the GOP do to make the economy crash? You can't name a single thng.Of course, 12 years of Republicans controlling the House, 10½ years of Republicans controlling the Senate, and 8 years controlling the executive branch; had nothing to do with the economy when it crashed.Remind me how it was Bush's fault.You're delusional if you think a Republican will become president and magically fix it. Let me remind you a Republican was in office when the economy cratered.This one has been going on for 6 years. It will continue until the day a Republican takes office.All recessions being different means there is no standard for recoveries.
Libs are such saps.
The worst recovery post war ever. Worst workforce participation since Carter. Most stagnant middle class wages ever. Most stagnant household wealth ever.
Dem policies are a complete disaster, a total failure. If Obama had played golf for 6 years instead of trying to get crap passed we would be in a far better position.
Six years and you repeat the same bullshit time aftert ime hoping it will stick.
The facts are plain: Worst economy despite spending the most money. Highest regulatory count ever. Most money conned out of businesses for essentially doing nothing ever.
This is the most anti business administration in history. They are a virtual kleptocracy. It is no wonder no one wants to expand or start a business here. It is suicide.
I
All recessions being different means there is no standard for recoveries.There is no such schedule.You pointed out that this recovery has taken longer than others but you're comparing the recession to others as though they are all the same. That begs the question I asked. Seems you don't want to answer it.Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? Are you under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker the recovery?I see ... so you're under the illusion that the deeper the recession, the quicker we should recover? And that the causes of the recession have little to do with the recovery?We have never had a recession this big that hit so fast. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months.I'll believe Obama's overspending has anything to do with restoring economic health when I see him cutting it to bring the budget back into balance. I mean, we ARE recovered now, right? It's never taken this long to recover from a recession before.
Oh, I'm well aware of the meme that Obama must be protected against all criticism of every kind at all costs. In fact, I am also absolutely certain that the economy will once again become the responsibility of the current president when the the Republican is inaugurated in 2017. Had Obama been more concerned about this calamity that you claim we have never had so bad instead of ramming through Obamadon'tcare, we might have had a real recovery. The bottom line remains, this is the slowest recovery we've ever had.
Oh, and which Republican do you think will beat Hillary in 2016?
How long are you going to keep buying into the story that no matter how long it takes to recover, it's because the recession was just the worst ever, that no one saw anything that bad? Basically, that's what you have set up here. You can excuse Obama's lackluster performance because, no matter what he does, "it was just so horrible, so awful, there's no way he could make it better". Of course, that will cease the moment another Republican takes office. Then, suddenly, it will be his responsibility.
As for who will beat Hillary, in a sane world, Skippy the Wonder Dog could beat her.
I see no reason to believe what I said would lead you to your question. It therefore makes as much sense to answer it as for you to answer the question "Do you believe the shallower a recession, the longer it should take to recover?".
And your notion that a dog becoming president is your idea of sanity is quite revealing.
It's more sane than the idea of installing Mrs Bubba in the White House and giving Mr Bubba another set of years to use the least powerful women in the office for his selfish sexual pleasure.
Oh, and the answer to your question is .... no.
Of course all recessions are not alike. Tell you what, why don't you tell us how long you think it should take for us to recover from the last one?
So you admit you have no standing to tell me I'm being impatient with the slow pace of recovery?
That's pretty fucking retarded, even for you. The economy crashed because people defaulted on their loans in record numbers. The vast majority of those toxic loans were written years earlier. And again, I've named things ... in threads about that issue.You failed completely. Democrats controlled the House for 2years prior to the crash. But anyway, so what? What did the GOP do to make the economy crash? You can't name a single thng.Of course, 12 years of Republicans controlling the House, 10½ years of Republicans controlling the Senate, and 8 years controlling the executive branch; had nothing to do with the economy when it crashed.Remind me how it was Bush's fault.You're delusional if you think a Republican will become president and magically fix it. Let me remind you a Republican was in office when the economy cratered.This one has been going on for 6 years. It will continue until the day a Republican takes office.All recessions being different means there is no standard for recoveries.
Libs are such saps.
The worst recovery post war ever. Worst workforce participation since Carter. Most stagnant middle class wages ever. Most stagnant household wealth ever.
Dem policies are a complete disaster, a total failure. If Obama had played golf for 6 years instead of trying to get crap passed we would be in a far better position.
Six years and you repeat the same bullshit time aftert ime hoping it will stick.
The facts are plain: Worst economy despite spending the most money. Highest regulatory count ever. Most money conned out of businesses for essentially doing nothing ever.
This is the most anti business administration in history. They are a virtual kleptocracy. It is no wonder no one wants to expand or start a business here. It is suicide.
I
