Would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

[RandomVariable]

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

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

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

So the insanely rich are trying to brainwash us to support the poor. I would like you to go to your happy place and think about that for a long, long time. You going to start crying when you realize just how duped you've been. It's OK. We're here for you.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

 

[RandomVariable]

Ever trying to be the peacemaker here's another one we might all agree on. The Republicans work for the rich. No?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

And the rate is still high. Whose fault is that?

 

[Spoonman]

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

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

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

faun, maybe you can do something no other liberal has ever been able to do. can you tell us exactly what these bush policies were? you know, the laws you claim bush passed that destroyed the economy. funny how libs site them all the time but can never actually name them.

 

[GreenBean]

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

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

So the insanely rich are trying to brainwash us to support the poor. I would like you to go to your happy place and think about that for a long, long time. You going to start crying when you realize just how duped you've been. It's OK. We're here for you.

Random - He's right to a certain extent. Peak out of your Liberal blogosphere, remove the aluminum foil from inside your hat for a moment and at least try to see the World beyond 1984.

The Cloward Piven Strategy


The Cloward Piven strategy was outlined by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It called for deliberately forcing the U.S. public welfare system into over-drive in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system .

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within - Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system

 

[whitehall]

Here we go again. Democrats control the Senate and the administration and they pretend they are in the minority. Maybe they will get their wish in November and really be in the minority.

 

[RandomVariable]

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

So the insanely rich are trying to brainwash us to support the poor. I would like you to go to your happy place and think about that for a long, long time. You going to start crying when you realize just how duped you've been. It's OK. We're here for you.

Random - He's right to a certain extent. Peak out of your Liberal blogosphere, remove the aluminum foil from inside your hat for a moment and at least try to see the World beyond 1984.

The Cloward Piven Strategy


The Cloward Piven strategy was outlined by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It called for deliberately forcing the U.S. public welfare system into over-drive in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system .

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within - Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system

So Ayn Rand battles Fox Piven. And I thought I had seen it all.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

Wrongo! Most of the increase occured in 2009, but it stayed high thereafter and even increased. If you don't recall, Obama was inaugurated in Jan of 2009.

Census data reveals long tail of recession recovery for most Americans - Capital Area Food Bank of Texas Blog

The recession may have officially ended in 2009, but if you talk to the average American, and especially the low-income American, the recession is hardly over.

Census data released today show that poverty not only rose since the recession ended, it remains stubbornly high at 15 percent for the last two years.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

Your figures are pure fantasy. People living in La-La land might believe that horseshit, but here in the real world we can look things up. If you look at the chart I posted, it shows that poverty declined for most of Reagan's term, and it barely increased during Bush's term.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

Your figures are pure fantasy. People living in La-La land might believe that horseshit, but here in the real world we can look things up. If you look at the chart I posted, it shows that poverty declined for most of Reagan's term, and it barely increased during Bush's term.

Because we know no one ever gets out of poverty once they go into it. It is like the roach motel of economic states.

 

[Faun]

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

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

And the rate is still high. Whose fault is that?

I'll explain it to you, but you're too fucking rightarded to understand it ... Obama's policies have contributed about 8% but Bush & Republicans' policies contributed about 25%. So while it's higher now is no indication that Bush (and Republicans) caused about 3 times the number of people to be in poverty.

 

[Spoonman]

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

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

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

so how about it faun, are you going to tell us what those bush policies were?

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

And the rate is still high. Whose fault is that?

I'll explain it to you, but you're too fucking rightarded to understand it ... Obama's policies have contributed about 8% but Bush & Republicans' policies contributed about 25%. So while it's higher now is no indication that Bush (and Republicans) caused about 3 times the number of people to be in poverty.

It is simply amazing. George Bush could singlehandedly put millions of people into poverty but Barack Obama is stymied by the minority Republicans in Congress.

 

[asterism]

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

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

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

That's not true.

2000 - 33.3 Million
2008 - 39.8 Million
2012 - 48.7 Million

Bush added 5.9 Million in 8 years.
Obama added 8.9 million in 4 years

 

[asterism]

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

And the rate is still high. Whose fault is that?

I'll explain it to you, but you're too fucking rightarded to understand it ... Obama's policies have contributed about 8% but Bush & Republicans' policies contributed about 25%. So while it's higher now is no indication that Bush (and Republicans) caused about 3 times the number of people to be in poverty.

You are absolutely incorrect.

Bush made it bad but Obama made it worse.

America's Poverty Rate Stuck At 15 Percent For Second Straight Year

 

[Faun]

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

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

faun, maybe you can do something no other liberal has ever been able to do. can you tell us exactly what these bush policies were? you know, the laws you claim bush passed that destroyed the economy. funny how libs site them all the time but can never actually name them.

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."

 

[Faun]

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

There is no problem there. Your claim is false. Most of the increase I mentioned (11% to 13%) occurred on Bush's watch (not Obama's watch, as you claimed) and the increase from 13% to 14% was the result of the Great Recession, which was due to Bush/Republican policies, not Obama's. After that point, I'd say it's reasonable to blame Obama, but it's ludicrous to blame him for increases during Bush's term or as a result from the recession he inherited.

Wrongo! Most of the increase occured in 2009, but it stayed high thereafter and even increased. If you don't recall, Obama was inaugurated in Jan of 2009.

Census data reveals long tail of recession recovery for most Americans - Capital Area Food Bank of Texas Blog

The recession may have officially ended in 2009, but if you talk to the average American, and especially the low-income American, the recession is hardly over.

Census data released today show that poverty not only rose since the recession ended, it remains stubbornly high at 15 percent for the last two years.

Imbecile ... the poverty rate when Bush became president was 11.3%

The poverty rate when he left office was 13.2%. But it continued to rise in 2009, as it has since 2007, due to the recession Bush left, to about 14%.

So Bush took it from 11% to 14% and Obama took it from there to 15%.

Even if you ignore the Great Recession and go by the day Obama was sworn in, it still increased more under Bush from 11.3% to 13.2%; than under Obama from 13.2% to 15%.

 

[jasonnfree]

Both sides are equally guilty of screwing the country for political gain. My economics professor said the Democrats pulled those same tricks in 2007 and 2008 to hamper the economy just to score political points at election time.

The sooner everyone in this country realizes the political parties and politicians are not our friends and are only in it for themselves, the better off we'll be as a nation.

Maybe the professor is right but then the democrats maybe used finesse a little. These knuckle dragging Republicans like Ryan, Cantor and McConnel come right out declaring war on Obama and making his failure a goal of theirs and they admit it. These lowlifes would gladly ruin our country to achieve this goal.