Unemployment Rate Drops Due to Obama's Economic Genius.
vict0r
Unemployment rate dips as more workers leave labor force
Employment-seekers decline by 652,000 June, which may reflect people giving
up on job-hunting and a reluctance to hire. Overall, the jobless rate falls
to 9.5% from 9.7%, the Labor Department reports.
July 02, 2010 Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/02/business/la-fi-jobs-report-20100703
---
February 9, 2009
You'll see the effects [of the stimulus] begin almost immediately," Summers
said on CNN. "Layoffs that otherwise would've happened in cities and towns
of cops and teachers wont happen. You'll see withholding schedules adjusted
so that people have more money in their paychecks. You'll see orders go out
for new roads, new bridges, new computers for hospitals. You'll start to see
better maintenance of schools. So, things will happen very, very quickly."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/02/summers_obama_i.html
---
January 2009
Obama: Stimulus will keep unemployment below 8%
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106397685
---
June 2009
Obama: Stimulus will create 600,000 jobs by the summer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31165217/
---
Feb. 2009
White House budget director Peter Orszag: Stimulus will stop job loss and
start creating jobs in "weeks to months":
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/05/sitroom.01.html
@damn.com The Great Obama Depression
"vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote in message
news:1sGXn.267002$pj7....@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> June Job Losses at 125,000
Clairbear
@news.eternal-september.org:
I thought Bush was to blame for Obama's continued feeble mindedness on the
economy. Is'nt that what all the libs say
Witziges R�tsel
news:1sGXn.267002$pj7....@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com...
>
>
Kevin Cunningham
> Unemployment rate dips as more workers leave labor force
>
> Employment-seekers decline by 652,000 June, which may reflect people giving
> up on job-hunting and a reluctance to hire. Overall, the jobless rate falls
> to 9.5% from 9.7%, the Labor Department reports.
>
> July 02, 2010 Los Angeles Times
>
>
> ---
>
> February 9, 2009
>
> You'll see the effects [of the stimulus] begin almost immediately," Summers
> said on CNN. "Layoffs that otherwise would've happened in cities and towns
> of cops and teachers wont happen. You'll see withholding schedules adjusted
> so that people have more money in their paychecks. You'll see orders go out
> for new roads, new bridges, new computers for hospitals. You'll start to see
> better maintenance of schools. So, things will happen very, very quickly."
>
>
> ---
>
> January 2009
>
> Obama: Stimulus will keep unemployment below 8%
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106397685
>
> ---
>
> June 2009
>
> Obama: Stimulus will create 600,000 jobs by the summer.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31165217/
>
> ---
>
> Feb. 2009
>
> White House budget director Peter Orszag: Stimulus will stop job loss and
> start creating jobs in "weeks to months":
>
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/05/sitroom.01.html
How many jobs were lost, not recovered but lost, in the last months of
the failed Bush presidency?
Scum repugs, that's just about all of them, love to think that some
how, some way they aren't responsible for this recession.
Yep, they are. They started it, they kept it going for years and when
they left office it was in full flower. Repugs started the worst
recession since the '20's .
Info Junkie
Far less than the 3 million jobs lost after the 800 Billion from
Obama's stimulus plan.
> Scum repugs, that's just about all of them, love to think that some
> how, some way they aren't responsible for this recession.
After nearly 1 1/2 yeasrs in office, the Obama Administration can't
continue to beat that "dead horse" anymore...and the public isn't
buying it.
> Yep, they are. They started it, they kept it going for years and when
> they left office it was in full flower. Repugs started the worst
> recession since the '20's
What did the "repugs...(keep) going for years and when they left
office it was in full flower"...the good economic conditions claimed
as beloning to Clinton (1994-2000) or when they started spending like
democrats (2000-2006)?
ITM, I guess you missed the economic boom of the "Roaring 20's"?
The PHANTOM
> Scum repugs, that's just about all of them, love to think that some
> how, some way they aren't responsible for this recession.
>
And you Obama scrotum toters give Oilbama a pass on EVERYthing
unless it's something that makes him look "Presidential".
> Yep, they are. They started it, they kept it going for years and when
> they left office it was in full flower. Repugs started the worst
> recession since the '20's .- Hide quoted text -
>
Proof ??
> - Show quoted text -
Sid9
"The Great Obama Depression" <GOD @DAMN.com> wrote in message
news:i0ncer$4r7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
.
We still pay for the damage done to America by St Reagan and the incompetent
bush,jr.
As we rebuild we face an enemy here at home in the form of Republican
obstructionism that puts their politics before their country.
Sid9
"Info Junkie" <bond...@att.net> wrote in message
news:a4610241-1b6b-45a4...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
.
The "dead" horse is the economic policies put in place by Republican St
Reagan, culminating in eight years of the incompetent bush,jr.
28 years of Republican failure cannot be cleaned up in 18 months.
buzz
>
> How many jobs were lost, not recovered but lost, in the last months of
> the failed Bush presidency?
>
> Scum repugs, that's just about all of them, love to think that some
> how, some way they aren't responsible for this recession.
>
> Yep, they are. They started it, they kept it going for years and when
> they left office it was in full flower. Repugs started the worst
> recession since the '20's .
You seem to forget that simple-minded dummycrats were in control of
Congress during the last two years of Bush's administration.
"forget the truck...everybody can buy a truck."...Urkel Obama
Not in your economy Mr. Urkel Obama
"Navy corpse-man"...Urkel Obama (three times)
"We don't begrudge success. But I do think at a
certain point you've made enough money." -Urkel Obama
http://www.calcitynews.com/article/09/NOVEMBER/09-MyName-Is.html
http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_obama_dont_drink_the_cool_aid_tshirt-p235592236153625507q6yv_400.jpg
Liberal slogan: "Cool-Aid Cool-Aid, tastes great, Cool-Aid Cool-Aid,
can't wait".
Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm
Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Sex offender? Rapist? Child molester? Pedophile? Deal in child porn? Any
or all of these and not in jail? Thank a lib, especially a lib judge.
sillapond
Why did only 4% of the "stimulus" money go into shovel-ready projects?
bush@bush.net Dick N. Balz
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:i0nkrs$nvj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Their boss Limpballs is askeered he won''t git his piece of the lil pie.
With the Reagan crowd it's all, "Me, Me, Me".
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5248 (20100703) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
buzz
Because huge amounts are ear-marked for the unions (organized crime)
when Urkel Hussein campaigns for the 2012 elections.
The PHANTOM
> "Info Junkie" <bondr...@att.net> wrote in message
Never mind the 8 years of Clinton(s) Presidency.
@damn.com The Great Obama Depression
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:i0nkrs$nvj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "The Great Obama Depression" <GOD @DAMN.com> wrote in message
> news:i0ncer$4r7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote in message
>> news:1sGXn.267002$pj7....@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> June Job Losses at 125,000
>>
>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/38054214
>>
>>
> .
> .
> We still pay for the damage done to America by St Reagan and the
> incompetent bush,jr.
==============
Millions of new jobs were created under Bush from 2003 after his tax cuts
kicked in, Todays depression started in 2008 when everyone saw the election
results.
Charts bitch slap your ugly VD infested face so hard your herpes sore s are
bleeding again.
http://vixandmore.blogspot.com/2009/06/chart-of-week-nonfarm-payrolls.html
Beerman
Did you learn changing the subject line from FAUX? Cheating is the GOPs
only tool!
Jobs that Bu$$$h created in China don't count
He can take credit for the jobs created when we went to war but I doubt
you can call them "christain" jobs. Beside, the profits were taken to the
middle east with Haliburton.
Siobhan Medeiros
It takes time to pull a plane out of a crash dive. But Obama did it.
http://www.politicalactionnetwork.com/2010/02/us-job-loss-from-dec-2007-to-jan-2010-bush-to-obama/
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/president-obama-job-creation-economy.html
>
> > Scum repugs, that's just about all of them, love to think that some
> > how, some way they aren't responsible for this recession.
>
> After nearly 1 1/2 yeasrs in office, the Obama Administration can't
> continue to beat that "dead horse" anymore...and the public isn't
> buying it.
>
> > Yep, they are. They started it, they kept it going for years and when
> > they left office it was in full flower. Repugs started the worst
> > recession since the '20's
And they started that one too.
>
> What did the "repugs...(keep) going for years and when they left
> office it was in full flower"...the good economic conditions claimed
> as beloning to Clinton (1994-2000) or when they started spending like
> democrats (2000-2006)?
2000-2006 is "good economic conditions"? LOL!
>
> ITM, I guess you missed the economic boom of the "Roaring 20's"?
Everybody did. Except the top 5%.
Almost everyone else saw their incomes drop.
And then the country went into the Great Depression.
Thank God the financial crisis didn't happen in 2005, or half of
America would be on the streets just like 1929.
Siobhan Medeiros
The progress of which was stripped away by the Bush Presidency, and
then some.
Info Junkie
> "Info Junkie" <bondr...@att.net> wrote in message
The Democrats have been the Congressional party in power since 2006.
Sid9
.
More Republican desperation.
You fool no one but yourselves.
Info Junkie
>
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/president-obama-job-c...
>
>
>
> > > Scum repugs, that's just about all of them, love to think that some
> > > how, some way they aren't responsible for this recession.
>
> > After nearly 1 1/2 yeasrs in office, the Obama Administration can't
> > continue to beat that "dead horse" anymore...and the public isn't
> > buying it.
>
> > > Yep, they are. They started it, they kept it going for years and when
> > > they left office it was in full flower. Repugs started the worst
> > > recession since the '20's
>
> And they started that one too.
>
>
>
> > What did the "repugs...(keep) going for years and when they left
> > office it was in full flower"...the good economic conditions claimed
> > as beloning to Clinton (1994-2000) or when they started spending like
> > democrats (2000-2006)?
>
> 2000-2006 is "good economic conditions"? LOL!
>
>
>
> > ITM, I guess you missed the economic boom of the "Roaring 20's"?
>
> Everybody did. Except the top 5%.
False. "the roaring 20's was the time right before the great
depression and everyone was spending money like crazy and indulging in
cinema, entertainment, past times etc."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090211162208AAxkDr2
"Everyone" seems to be a bit more than just the "top 5%"
"When President Warren Harding took office in 1921, the national
economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of
20% and runaway inflation...." (Harding "inherited" the economy from
Democrat President Wilson)
"...Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes,
protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding didn't
live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress.
These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
> Almost everyone else saw their incomes drop.
>
> And then the country went into the Great Depression.
This is what happens when people foolishly run up their debt and
speculate on Wall Street.
>Thank God the financial crisis didn't happen in 2005, or half of
> America would be on the streets just like 1929.
Why would 2005 be different than 2010?
Sid9
.
bush,jr and the Republicans would have done shit for Americans.
Obama and the Democrats are fighting hard against the steadfast
obstructionism of the Republicans to prevent disaster
sillapond
>>> Repugs started the worst
>>> recession since the '20's
>
> And they started that one too.
You dolt, economic recession cycles are non-partisan.
sillapond
>> Never mind the 8 years of Clinton(s) Presidency.
> The progress of which was stripped away by the Bush Presidency, and
> then some.
Asa canuck your opinions are irrelevant.
Info Junkie
In addition to ignoring the “Roaring 20’s”, how quickly (and
conveniently) leftist-liberals choose to forget...and that facts can
be researched.
(Feel free to look it up to prove the following wrong)
President Reagan:
US House of Representatives controlled by the Democrats (97-100th
Congress)
US Senate controlled by the Republicans (97th, 98th and 99th Congress)
US Senate controlled by the Democrats (100th Congress)
President Bush (41):
US House of Representatives AND US Senate controlled by the Democrats
(101st and 102nd Congress)
President Clinton:
US House of Representatives AND US Senate controlled by the Democrats
(103rd Congress)
US House of Representatives AND US Senate controlled by the
Republicans
(104th, 105th and 106th Congress)
President Bush (43):
US House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans (107th
Congress)
US House of Representatives AND US Senate controlled by the
Republicans (108rd and 109th Congress)
US Senate briefly controlled by the Republicans (107th Congress)
US Senate primarily controlled by the Democrats (107th Congress)
President Obama:
US House of Representatives AND US Senate controlled by the Democrats
(110st and 111th Congress)
US House of Representatives:
Controlled by the Republicans ~12 years
Controlled by the Democrats ~18 years
US Senate:
Controlled by the Republicans ~16 years
Controlled by the Democrats ~14 years
Nope...there's no evidence of "28 years of Republican failure". I do
see ~30 years of each Congressional party in power since (and
including) President Reagan. I also see that the Democrats are still
the majority Congressional party in power...and have been since 2006.
Info Junkie
Don't confuse yourself with the facts.
> You fool no one but yourselves
If you insist on refusing the accept facts as provided you, the only
"fool" is the one in your mirror.
Sid9
.
What are you proving ?
That Republican presidents are ineffectual and incompetent?
No president has ever been more incompetent than Reagan, HW Bush, and his
clown son, bush,jr.
Info Junkie
> "Info Junkie" <bondr...@att.net> wrote in message
(In addition to ignoring my question and comments)
It seems you've bought into the lie that health care is a "right". How
sad that you can be so easily manipulated into believing a lie.
> Obama and the Democrats are fighting hard against the steadfast
> obstructionism of the Republicans to prevent disaster
"Fighting hard" where...on the golf course?
The Democrats in Congress have been the majority party in power since
2006. They have had what amounts to a 'super majority" since 2008.
Contrary to the hyperboyle and rhetoric, "obstructionism" by the
Republicans was not possible.
Sid9
.
More desperation trying to shift responsibility for the current mess off the
Republicans who created it.
While Democrat Obama's favorability is at 50%, Republican bush,jr is
remembered at 27%
Most of America has not forgotten Republican bush,jr's incompetence
Sid9
There's no lie.
Times change. Health care has become a right.
Our society does not let it's fellow members die in the street unattended
for..
The meanest and poorest among us get medical care one way or another.
============
>
>> Obama and the Democrats are fighting hard against the steadfast
>> obstructionism of the Republicans to prevent disaster
>
> "Fighting hard" where...on the golf course?
============
Spurious bullshit. Obama's a far harder worker than the lazy bush,jr.
============
>
> The Democrats in Congress have been the majority party in power since
> 2006. They have had what amounts to a 'super majority" since 2008.
> Contrary to the hyperboyle and rhetoric, "obstructionism" by the
> Republicans was not possible.
===============
You prove that makes the Republican presidents totally ineffectual
===============
Siobhan Medeiros
Some unknown twit answering a question on Yahoo is not a credible
source.
Try these ones.
http://www.squidoo.com/Roaring-Twenties
http://www.shmoop.com/1920s/economy.html
> "Everyone" seems to be a bit more than just the "top 5%"
>
> "When President Warren Harding took office in 1921, the national
> economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of
> 20% and runaway inflation...." (Harding "inherited" the economy from
> Democrat President Wilson)
Maybe you didn't hear, but Wilson had to fight a war. Wars are almost
always followed by economic recessions as wartime industries close
down.
>
> "...Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes,
> protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding didn't
> live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress.
> These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
>
Which led to the Great Depression.
> > Almost everyone else saw their incomes drop.
>
> > And then the country went into the Great Depression.
>
> This is what happens when people foolishly run up their debt and
> speculate on Wall Street.
>
Which is what produced the "boom" in the first place. The whole thing
was one giant bubble.
> >Thank God the financial crisis didn't happen in 2005, or half of
> > America would be on the streets just like 1929.
>
> Why would 2005 be different than 2010?
Because Bush would have been in office for three more years to run the
country even further into the ground.
Ray Fischer
> "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>> The "dead" horse is the economic policies put in place by Republican St
>> Reagan, culminating in eight years of the incompetent bush,jr.
>>
>> 28 years of Republican failure cannot be cleaned up in 18 months.
>
>The Democrats have been the Congressional party in power since 2006.
Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
Tell us, rightard, how it is that the GOP managed to kill a bill that
would extend unemployment benefits?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Info Junkie
Thanks for the links. One link notes:
"The Roaring Twenties is traditionally viewed as an era of great
economic prosperity...transitioned from a wartime economy to a
peacetime economy; the economy subsequently boomed."
While the other link shows: "A Great Time to be Rich" (and) "A Good
Time to be Middle-Class".
Even your links show that the economic boom was enjoyed by far more
than the alleged "top 5%".
ITM, I find it amusing those articles the have something along the
lines of; "nearly half the nation's population still resided in rural
areas", or some a similar...as if this living in a rural area was a
bad thing.
"A new national survey by the Pew Research Center's Social &
Demographic Trends project finds that nearly half (46%) of the public
would rather live in a different type of community from the one
they're living in now -- a sentiment that is most prevalent among city
dwellers....Seven-in-ten rural men are content where they are,
compared with just half of rural women"
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1096/community-satisfaction-top-cities
> > "Everyone" seems to be a bit more than just the "top 5%"
>
> > "When President Warren Harding took office in 1921, the national
> > economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of
> > 20% and runaway inflation...." (Harding "inherited" the economy from
> > Democrat President Wilson)
>
> Maybe you didn't hear, but Wilson had to fight a war. Wars are almost
> always followed by economic recessions as wartime industries close
> down.
Actually I did read about it...and the war ended in 1919. I also read
Wilson's election promise to keep us out of the war. He
lied...whereas:
"U.S. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigns in protest,
claiming that the United States is taking a pro-Allied stance in
handling the Lusitania affair while claiming neutrality."
http://rmslusitania.info/pages/timeline.html
> > "...Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes,
> > protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding didn't
> > live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress.
> > These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
>
> Which led to the Great Depression.
Speculation and loose credit led to the "Great Depresssion".
> > > Almost everyone else saw their incomes drop.
>
> > > And then the country went into the Great Depression.
>
> > This is what happens when people foolishly run up their debt and
> > speculate on Wall Street.
>
> Which is what produced the "boom" in the first place. The whole thing
> was one giant bubble.
To a point, I agree.
> > >Thank God the financial crisis didn't happen in 2005, or half of
> > > America would be on the streets just like 1929.
>
> > Why would 2005 be different than 2010?
>
> Because Bush would have been in office for three more years to run the
> country even further into the ground.
You're speculating based on an unsubstantiated assertion.
OTOH, with President Obama and a Democratic Congress, we have a
factual debt of more than 13+ Trillion...and rising:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"It took the entire history of the United States until the year 2008
to get to $9 Trillion dollars in debt"
http://financialbondage.org/blog/2010/06/dave-ramsey-on-our-national-debt-13-trillion-dollars/
Info Junkie
They can't as the Democrats have been the Congressional party in power
since 2006.
A better question is: How can the Democrat majority party in power use
the reconcilliation bill to force a simple majority vote to pass
legislation that takes over a major sector of the American economy,
but can't not get a simple unemployment bill extended without blaming
others?
sillapond
>> Why would 2005 be different than 2010?
> Because Bush would have been in office for three more years to run the
> country even further into the ground.
When in doubt - always blame Bush.
Siobhan Medeiros
>
> Thanks for the links. One link notes:
> "The Roaring Twenties is traditionally viewed as an era of great
> economic prosperity...transitioned from a wartime economy to a
> peacetime economy; the economy subsequently boomed."
>
> While the other link shows: "A Great Time to be Rich" (and) "A Good
> Time to be Middle-Class".
>
> Even your links show that the economic boom was enjoyed by far more
> than the alleged "top 5%".
>
> ITM, I find it amusing those articles the have something along the
> lines of; "nearly half the nation's population still resided in rural
> areas", or some a similar...as if this living in a rural area was a
> bad thing.
>
It was for them. If you'd bother to read the rest of the article, you
have read that for them, the Great Depression started in 1920.
So more than half the population lost out. Some boom.
> "A new national survey by the Pew Research Center's Social &
> Demographic Trends project finds that nearly half (46%) of the public
> would rather live in a different type of community from the one
> they're living in now -- a sentiment that is most prevalent among city
> dwellers....Seven-in-ten rural men are content where they are,
> compared with just half of rural women"http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1096/community-satisfaction-top-cities
>
> > > "Everyone" seems to be a bit more than just the "top 5%"
>
> > > "When President Warren Harding took office in 1921, the national
> > > economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of
> > > 20% and runaway inflation...." (Harding "inherited" the economy from
> > > Democrat President Wilson)
>
> > Maybe you didn't hear, but Wilson had to fight a war. Wars are almost
> > always followed by economic recessions as wartime industries close
> > down.
>
> Actually I did read about it...and the war ended in 1919.
Actually, moron, it ended in 1918. Second, do you think that you're
going to clean up the economic mess of a fallout that big in just
three years? Let me guess, you're one of those rightards who think
Obama should have been able to fix the mess instantly.
>I also read
> Wilson's election promise to keep us out of the war. He
> lied...whereas:
Things change when they start torpedoing your ships and slaughtering
your citizens.
>
> "U.S. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigns in protest,
> claiming that the United States is taking a pro-Allied stance in
> handling the Lusitania affair while claiming neutrality.
Gee, ya think? Wow, what a shocker. Taking an anti-Axis stance after
the Axis starts torpedoing your ships. Who'd a thought.
>"http://rmslusitania.info/pages/timeline.html
>
> > > "...Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes,
> > > protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding didn't
> > > live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress.
> > > These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
>
> > Which led to the Great Depression.
>
> Speculation and loose credit led to the "Great Depresssion".
>
In other words, deregulation.
Face it, asshole. The Republicans controlled the Presidency, Senate,
and House from 1921 to 1933. There's no ducking accountibility for
this one.
> > > > Almost everyone else saw their incomes drop.
>
> > > > And then the country went into the Great Depression.
>
> > > This is what happens when people foolishly run up their debt and
> > > speculate on Wall Street.
>
> > Which is what produced the "boom" in the first place. The whole thing
> > was one giant bubble.
>
> To a point, I agree.
>
> > > >Thank God the financial crisis didn't happen in 2005, or half of
> > > > America would be on the streets just like 1929.
>
> > > Why would 2005 be different than 2010?
>
> > Because Bush would have been in office for three more years to run the
> > country even further into the ground.
>
> You're speculating based on an unsubstantiated assertion.
>
Yeah, it stands to reason the guy who made the mess would be the best
to clean it up. Not.
> OTOH, with President Obama and a Democratic Congress, we have a
> factual debt of more than 13+ Trillion...and rising:http://www.usdebtclock.org/
>
I'm sorry, who was it who decided to double the national debt in the
first place? Who gave us those two wars and unfunded tax cuts?
Refresh my memory, please.
> "It took the entire history of the United States until the year 2008
> to get to $9 Trillion dollars in debt"http://financialbondage.org/blog/2010/06/dave-ramsey-on-our-national-...
Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
Year 2004 to get to 7 trillion.
Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
Year 2002 to get to 6 trillion....
Siobhan Medeiros
As a shithead yours are even more so.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 4, 5:45�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Disinfo Junkie �<bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> > "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> The "dead" horse is the economic policies put in place by Republican St
>> >> Reagan, culminating in eight years of the incompetent bush,jr.
>>
>> >> 28 years of Republican failure cannot be cleaned up in 18 months.
>>
>> >The Democrats have been the Congressional party in power since 2006.
>>
>> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
>>
>> Tell us, rightard, how it is that the GOP managed to kill a bill that
>> would extend unemployment benefits?
>
>They can't
They just did, dumbshit rightard. Are you insane? Or did Limbaugh/
Beck/ORielly decide that you didn't need to know that?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Info Junkie
> Disinfo Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 4, 5:45 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Disinfo Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >> > "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> The "dead" horse is the economic policies put in place by Republican St
> >> >> Reagan, culminating in eight years of the incompetent bush,jr.
>
> >> >> 28 years of Republican failure cannot be cleaned up in 18 months.
>
> >> >The Democrats have been the Congressional party in power since 2006.
>
> >> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
>
> >> Tell us, rightard, how it is that the GOP managed to kill a bill that
> >> would extend unemployment benefits?
>
> >They can't
>
> They just did, dumbshit rightard. Are you insane? Or did Limbaugh/
> Beck/ORielly decide that you didn't need to know that?
Apparently you don't understand the Republicans are the minority
party. You also fail to understand the Democrats won't compromise on
spending. The two conditions heard most often and the Democrats
continually reject are:
1. Don't add more to the deficit
2. Pay for at least 1/2 with unused money from the $787 billion
stimulus package.
One Republican leader offered a compromise; extend the bill for the
next two months if unused TARP money paid for it...Democrats refused.
Two Republican Senators voted for the bill, while one Democrat, Sen.
Ben Nelson, D-Neb., opposed to the bill because it would add more than
$33 billion to the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit.
Democrats have been the Congressional party in power since 2006, yet
cannot convince all of their own party members to vote for this bill.
Your turn to answer my question:
How can the Democrat majority party in power use the reconcilliation
bill to force a simple majority vote to pass legislation that takes
over a major sector of the American economy, but can't not get a
simple unemployment benefits bill extended without blaming others?
Info Junkie
corrected post.
Seems you've ignored the Pew servey.
>If you'd bother to read the rest of the article, you
> have read that for them, the Great Depression started in 1920.
...and they "enjoyed unusual prosperity during World War I".
http://www.enotes.com/1920-government-politics-american-decades/government-farmers
> So more than half the population lost out. Some boom.
...far less than the 95% the other poster claimed and not every aspect
of America is going to prosper in all cases for any length of time.
That's life...
> > "A new national survey by the Pew Research Center's Social &
> > Demographic Trends project finds that nearly half (46%) of the public
> > would rather live in a different type of community from the one
> > they're living in now -- a sentiment that is most prevalent among city
> > dwellers....Seven-in-ten rural men are content where they are,
> > compared with just half of rural women"http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1096/community-satisfaction-top-cities
>
> > > > "Everyone" seems to be a bit more than just the "top 5%"
>
> > > > "When President Warren Harding took office in 1921, the national
> > > > economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of
> > > > 20% and runaway inflation...." (Harding "inherited" the economy from
> > > > Democrat President Wilson)
>
> > > Maybe you didn't hear, but Wilson had to fight a war. Wars are almost
> > > always followed by economic recessions as wartime industries close
> > > down.
>
> > Actually I did read about it...and the war ended in 1919.
>
> Actually, moron, it ended in 1918.
Actually child, it ended at signing of the Treaty of Versailles, on
June 28, 1919.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
>Second, do you think that you're
> going to clean up the economic mess of a fallout that big in just
> three years? Let me guess, you're one of those rightards who think
> Obama should have been able to fix the mess instantly.
1. Democrats have been the majority party in power in Congress since
2006.
US Constitution, Art. I, Section 7 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp
2. Nowhere have I ever made such a claim regarding Obama.
So once again you're "guess" is in error.
> >I also read
> > Wilson's election promise to keep us out of the war. He
> > lied...whereas:
>
> Things change when they start torpedoing your ships and slaughtering
> your citizens.
ROTFLMHO. The Lusitania was a British ship. Wilson claimed
neutrality.
> > "U.S. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigns in protest,
> > claiming that the United States is taking a pro-Allied stance in
> > handling the Lusitania affair while claiming neutrality.
>
> Gee, ya think? Wow, what a shocker. Taking an anti-Axis stance after
> the Axis starts torpedoing your ships. Who'd a thought.
The Lusitania was a British ship. Wilson claimed neutrality.
> >"http://rmslusitania.info/pages/timeline.html
>
> > > > "...Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes,
> > > > protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding didn't
> > > > live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress.
> > > > These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
>
> > > Which led to the Great Depression.
>
> > Speculation and loose credit led to the "Great Depresssion".
>
> In other words, deregulation.
Actually no. There was very little regulation at the time
anyway.whereas the Federal Reserve began under Wilson in 1913.
http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf
> Face it, asshole.
My my, how immature you're showing yourself.
>The Republicans controlled the Presidency, Senate,
> and House from 1921 to 1933. There's no ducking accountibility for
> this one.
Almost. In 1931 to 1933, Congress was comprised of both Republicans
and Democrats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72nd_United_States_Congress
The econmic recovery from a depression began in 1921. It ended with a
stock market crash in Oct 1929.
> > > > > Almost everyone else saw their incomes drop.
>
> > > > > And then the country went into the Great Depression.
>
> > > > This is what happens when people foolishly run up their debt and
> > > > speculate on Wall Street.
>
> > > Which is what produced the "boom" in the first place. The whole thing
> > > was one giant bubble.
>
> > To a point, I agree.
>
> > > > >Thank God the financial crisis didn't happen in 2005, or half of
> > > > > America would be on the streets just like 1929.
>
> > > > Why would 2005 be different than 2010?
>
> > > Because Bush would have been in office for three more years to run the
> > > country even further into the ground.
>
> > You're speculating based on an unsubstantiated assertion.
>
> Yeah, it stands to reason the guy who made the mess would be the best
> to clean it up. Not.
Democrats have been the majority party power in Congress since 2006.
> > OTOH, with President Obama and a Democratic Congress, we have a
> > factual debt of more than 13+ Trillion...and rising:http://www.usdebtclock.org/
>
> I'm sorry, who was it who decided to double the national debt in the
> first place? Who gave us those two wars and unfunded tax cuts?
> Refresh my memory, please.
1. The Congress' between 2001 and today. ITM, you're excusing Wilson,
a Democrat, but are blaming Bush, a Republican?
2. When did tax cuts become "unfunded"?
Obama has dramatically increased the debt and spending money that
doesn't exist.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
> > "It took the entire history of the United States until the year 2008
> > to get to $9 Trillion dollars in debt"http://financialbondage.org/blog/2010/06/dave-ramsey-on-our-national-...
>
> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>
> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
> Year 2004 to get to 7 trillion.
Oops. since 2003 we've been in Iraq and Afganistan.
> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
> Year 2002 to get to 6 trillion
Seems you;ve ignored ramifications from the events of 9/11/2001 and
the federal monies spent on Katrina in 2005.
"Hurricane Katrina of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the
costliest natural disaster...in the history of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States
sillapond
> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>
Obama got us to 13 trillion$$$ in 16 short months, fool.
sillapond
That too, even if it's a mild redundancy, canuck.
Ray Fischer
Info Junkie
> sillapond <i...@val.id> wrote:
> >On 07/04/2010 04:44 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> >> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
> >> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>
> >Obama got us to 13 trillion$$$ in 16 short months,
>
> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
This is not "right" nor "left" lie Mr Fischer. Political differences
aside, the facts are available for all ot see:
Obama's been in office ~16 months.
"The debt has risen by around 2.4 trillion dollars since Obama took
office in January 2009 and rose 4.9 trillion dollars in the eight
years George W. Bush spent in office."
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6006496.cms
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 5, 10:01�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> sillapond �<i...@val.id> wrote:
>> >On 07/04/2010 04:44 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>> >> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
>> >> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>>
>> >Obama got us to 13 trillion$$$ in 16 short months,
>>
>> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
>
>This is not "right" nor "left" lie Mr Fischer.
Of course it is, rightard bigot. The vast majority of that debt came
from Reagan and Bush.
>Obama's been in office ~16 months.
>"The debt has risen by around 2.4 trillion dollars since Obama took
>office in January 2009 and rose
Thanks to one George W. Bush.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Info Junkie
> Disinfo Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 5, 10:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> sillapond <i...@val.id> wrote:
> >> >On 07/04/2010 04:44 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> >> >> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
> >> >> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>
> >> >Obama got us to 13 trillion$$$ in 16 short months,
>
> >> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
>
> >This is not "right" nor "left" lie Mr Fischer.
>
> Of course it is, rightard bigot. The vast majority of that debt came
> from Reagan and Bush.
So when a poster ignores (and snips) the facts presented, they start
callling themselves "Ray Fischer"? Or aren't you old enough to
remember the fiasco of an economy under President Jimmy Carter...or
the monies spent for Iraq, Afganistan, 9/11 and Katrina?
> >Obama's been in office ~16 months.
> >"The debt has risen by around 2.4 trillion dollars since Obama took
> >office in January 2009 and rose
>
> Thanks to one George W. Bush.
Guess you missed the facts that Obama, not Bush, has been the POTUS
for nearly 18 months, and both house of Congress have been a Democrat
majority since 2006.
It took Obama and this Congress only 16 months to rack up nearly 1/2
of the debt over the 8 years of Bush.
NoBody
You're confusing ray-ray with actual facts. He doesn't deal with them
well.
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 7, 12:57 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Disinfo Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 5, 10:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> sillapond <i...@val.id> wrote:
>> >> >On 07/04/2010 04:44 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>> >> >> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
>> >> >> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>>
>> >> >Obama got us to 13 trillion$$$ in 16 short months,
>>
>> >> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
>>
>> >This is not "right" nor "left" lie Mr Fischer.
>>
>> Of course it is, rightard bigot. The vast majority of that debt came
>> from Reagan and Bush.
>
>So when a poster ignores (and snips) the facts presented,
Liek you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the US's debt is a
direct result of the policies of Reagan and Bush?
>> >Obama's been in office ~16 months.
>> >"The debt has risen by around 2.4 trillion dollars since Obama took
>> >office in January 2009 and rose
>>
>> Thanks to one George W. Bush.
>
>Guess you missed the facts that Obama,
Bush's wars, Bush's TARP, Bush's tax cuts, Bush's recession.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
>Disinfo Junkie <bond...@att.net> wrote:
>>On Jul 7, 12:57 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Disinfo Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Jul 5, 10:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> >> sillapond <i...@val.id> wrote:
>>> >> >On 07/04/2010 04:44 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>> >> >> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
>>> >> >> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>>>
>>> >> >Obama got us to 13 trillion$$$ in 16 short months,
>>>
>>> >> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
>>>
>>> >This is not "right" nor "left" lie Mr Fischer.
>>>
>>> Of course it is, rightard bigot. The vast majority of that debt came
>>> from Reagan and Bush.
>>
>>So when a poster ignores (and snips) the facts presented,
>
>Liek you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the US's debt is a
>direct result of the policies of Reagan and Bush?
I'm not ignoring anything. You however rely on the tired old "but,
but Bush...".
>
>>> >Obama's been in office ~16 months.
>>> >"The debt has risen by around 2.4 trillion dollars since Obama took
>>> >office in January 2009 and rose
>>>
>>> Thanks to one George W. Bush.
>>
>>Guess you missed the facts that Obama,
>
>Bush's wars, Bush's TARP, Bush's tax cuts, Bush's recession.
Has Obama ended the wars and removed the troops? These are now
*Obama's* wars. You also ignore that the Dems have controlled all
legislation for over three years and did nothing to stop the economic
collapse but instead made it worse by spending money we don't have.
Ray Fischer
>On 09 Jul 2010 03:43:59 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Disinfo Junkie <bond...@att.net> wrote:
>>>On Jul 7, 12:57 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Disinfo Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Jul 5, 10:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> >> sillapond <i...@val.id> wrote:
>>>> >> >On 07/04/2010 04:44 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>>> >> >> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
>>>> >> >> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>>>>
>>>> >> >Obama got us to 13 trillion$$$ in 16 short months,
>>>>
>>>> >> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
>>>>
>>>> >This is not "right" nor "left" lie Mr Fischer.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is, rightard bigot. The vast majority of that debt came
>>>> from Reagan and Bush.
>>>
>>>So when a poster ignores (and snips) the facts presented,
>>
>>Liek you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the US's debt is a
>>direct result of the policies of Reagan and Bush?
>
>I'm not ignoring anything. You however rely on the tired old "but,
The rightard changes the subject and ignores the fact that the vast
majority of the US's debt is a direct result of the policies of Reagan
and Bush.
>>>> >Obama's been in office ~16 months.
>>>> >"The debt has risen by around 2.4 trillion dollars since Obama took
>>>> >office in January 2009 and rose
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to one George W. Bush.
>>>
>>>Guess you missed the facts that Obama,
>>
>>Bush's wars, Bush's TARP, Bush's tax cuts, Bush's recession.
>
>Has Obama ended the wars and removed the troops?
Oh, you're one of those cut and run rightards. A Reagan republican.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Walter Harding
This is what you posted:
> Unemployment rate dips as more workers leave labor force
>
> Employment-seekers decline by 652,000 June, which may reflect people giving
> up on job-hunting and a reluctance to hire.
The reason the offical unemployment number dipped slightly is because
more and more people have been unemployed for six months.
And you believe rising numbers of people who haven't worked for a half
year is a good thing?
Are you nuts?
Walter Harding
> "The Great Obama Depression" <GOD @DAMN.com> wrote in messagenews:i0ncer$4r7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote in message
> >news:1sGXn.267002$pj7....@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> >> June Job Losses at 125,000
>
> >http://www.cnbc.com/id/38054214
>
> .
> .
> We still pay for the damage done to America by St Reagan and the incompetent
> bush,jr.
>
> As we rebuild we face an enemy here at home in the form of Republican
> obstructionism that puts their politics before their country.
You've got another three and a half months to tell yourself that fairy
tale.
There's a hard rain coming for the Democrats.
Russell Ronco
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:34:52 -0700 (PDT), Walter Harding
>
> <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> As we rebuild we face an enemy here at home in the form of Republican
> >> obstructionism that puts their politics before their country.
>
> >You've got another three and a half months to tell yourself that fairy
> >tale.
>
>
> The Democrats were elected in 06 based on a list of things they
> intended to do if elected.
>
> Since 06---the House had passed 90% of what THEY were elected to do.
And there is your logical fallacy... the Democrats DIDN'T pass what
they promised to.
In 2006, the democrats ran as the REAL part of fiscal responsibility.
They promised to cut the deficit. Instead, they increased it a ten
fold. They campaigned on job creation - instead, they lead the
country into a defacto unemployment rate of nearly 20%. The Democrats
sold themselves as the party of competence - and yet Obama has
produced a text book perfect example of how not to handle a crisis
during the Barak Petrolatum spill.
> Since 06---the Senate GOP filibustered 90% of that House passed
> legislation (remember it was why democrats were chosen)---and blocked
> any means of fulfilling those promises.
A happy fact that will win the Republicans the House, and possibly the
Senate. Remember, what the Democrats have done is wildly unpopular.
Filibustering unpopular bills wins elections.
> >There's a hard rain coming for the Democrats.
>
> So--your belief is that the party that blocked the will of the people,
We didn't block the will of the people. We stood in the way of power
mad Democrats.
> has offered NO new or cogent direction or policy except "more of the
> same",
You mean we dare want to go back to a period where we had 4.6%
unemployment and a deficit one tenth the current amount? As a matter
of fact, YES!
And what is this bullshit you keep spouting about "new" policies?
Everything you guys are passing in the middle of the night without
senate votes are 19th Century socialism. It's been tried, it's
failed.
> that exhibited obstruction and discord---is going to be elected
> to produce----what?
Because Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are the biggest screw ups in US
history.
Russell Ronco
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco
>
>
>
> <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 10, 7:55 am, Nort...@tweet.net wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:34:52 -0700 (PDT), Walter Harding
>
> >> <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> As we rebuild we face an enemy here at home in the form of Republican
> >> >> obstructionism that puts their politics before their country.
>
> >> >You've got another three and a half months to tell yourself that fairy
> >> >tale.
>
> >> Why that comment. The public record is clear on that point
>
> >> The Democrats were elected in 06 based on a list of things they
> >> intended to do if elected.
>
> >> Since 06---the House had passed 90% of what THEY were elected to do.
>
> >And there is your logical fallacy... the Democrats DIDN'T pass what
> >they promised to.
>
The fallacy doesn't come for it being passed - rather the bills passes
aren't what the Democrat promised. I don't recall they every
campaigning on a 1.2 trillion dollar (interest included) deficit
buster that would actively destroy jobs. Nor did they run on
destroying the American medical system. The American people can see
the difference between what was pledged, and what was delivered, and
will vote accordingly.
> >In 2006, the democrats ran as the REAL part of fiscal responsibility.
> By that time, the House was saddled with then full-blown financial
> crisis heading for ultimate collapse.
>
What was the worst part? The skyrocketing DOW, the unemployment rate
of 4.6% or the deficit that was 1/10 the current rate?
> >They promised to cut the deficit.In 2006, Instead, they increased it a ten
>> fold. They campaigned on job creation - instead, they lead the
>> country into a defacto unemployment rate of nearly 20%. The Democrats
>>sold themselves as the party of competence - and yet Obama has
>> produced a text book perfect example of how not to handle a crisis
>> during the Barak Petrolatum spill.
> Bush threatened veto of anything that did not conform to his past
> policies and the Senate filibustered the rest.
I wish. Bush the and Republicans rolled over for Pelosi and Reid.
You guys got what you wanted. Aren't you proud?
> >> Since 06---the Senate GOP filibustered 90% of that House passed
> >> legislation (remember it was why democrats were chosen)---and blocked
> >> any means of fulfilling those promises.
>
> >A happy fact that will win the Republicans the House,
>
> Your "happy fact" forgets that over a dozen long held republican seats
> went democrat---and it's a certainty they would revert--as "sure
> seats"
So tell me, if you guys are so sure of your power, why aren't you
running on your records?
> But the fight is within the GOP---with the more ignorant taking out
> the marginally idiot republicans---then figuring that More extremism
> is going to win the day.
Here's the thing....Pelosi, Reid and Obama are so repulsive that
they've unified the Republicans, conservatives and libertarians more
closely that I've seen in my lifetime.
Remember how much fun you had insulting Sarah Palin's teenaged
daughters? All the cocksuckers/teabagger "jokes"? The attack by the
President against Arizona? Rev. Wright? Sargent Crowe? "You can't
be listening to Rush Limbaugh"? The Glen Beck boycott? CNN reporters
screaming at the Tea Party protesters?
It's all coming back to haunt you.
>
> >> >There's a hard rain coming for the Democrats.
>
> >> So--your belief is that the party that blocked the will of the people,
>
> >We didn't block the will of the people. We stood in the way of power
> >mad Democrats.
>
> "power mad"?
Do you prefer the term "fascist?"
> Democrats campaigned on a half dozen specific policies
> and intentions---ALL have been blocked by Republicans and/or their
> supporters.
And those policies are wildly unpopular.
> >> has offered NO new or cogent direction or policy except "more of the
> >> same",
>
> >You mean we dare want to go back to a period where we had 4.6%
> >unemployment and a deficit one tenth the current amount? As a matter
> >of fact, YES!
>
> Those fucking policies you crow about set up the financial
> crisis---are you insane?
No, and I don't accept your insane lies, either.
> >And what is this bullshit you keep spouting about "new" policies?
>
> What NEW policy has the GOP touted that changes their policies from
> the Bush decade--which will solve our problem? There is NO publicized
> agenda mentioned by the GOP---only of obstruction and refusing to
> accept that THEIR policy caused the PRESENT mess.
I'm not surprised you didn't know what the Republicans
alternatives....the Democrat bills were written behinded closed doors,
and didn't allow alternative imput.
Anyway, you guys got your way. You own the current economy. And few
and few people pay attention to your blaming Bush anymore.
> >Everything you guys are passing in the middle of the night without
> >senate votes are 19th Century socialism. It's been tried, it's
> >failed.
>
> Got news for you.
>
> The policy of the 19th century American government was "loonytarian"
> and featured a policy of NON government participation in most of
> American domestic policy.
And those policies launched The American Century. Socialism/communism
brought about the decline and fall of Europe, not to mention death
camps and the murder of 100 million innocent souls in the 20th Century
alone.
> >> that exhibited obstruction and discord---is going to be elected
> >> to produce----what?
>
> >Because Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are the biggest screw ups in US
> >history.
>
> Says the supporter of the biggest lying, thieving, corrupt, sleazy
> administration since Reagan had that honor.
Obama's deficit is higher in his first two years than in Bush's entire
eight year administration. Obama's created massive unemployment. He
allowed the oil drilling accident to happen, and has done virtually
nothing to stop it.
Amazingly, the only success Obama has to point to is the Iraq War.
NoBody
>NoBody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On 09 Jul 2010 03:43:59 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Disinfo Junkie <bond...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>On Jul 7, 12:57 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> Disinfo Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Jul 5, 10:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> >> sillapond <i...@val.id> wrote:
>>>>> >> >On 07/04/2010 04:44 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>>>> >> >> Yeah, and it took the entire history of the United States until the
>>>>> >> >> Year 2006 to get to 8 trillion.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >Obama got us to 13 trillion$$$ in 16 short months,
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> >This is not "right" nor "left" lie Mr Fischer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is, rightard bigot. The vast majority of that debt came
>>>>> from Reagan and Bush.
>>>>
>>>>So when a poster ignores (and snips) the facts presented,
>>>
>>>Liek you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the US's debt is a
>>>direct result of the policies of Reagan and Bush?
>>
>>I'm not ignoring anything. You however rely on the tired old "but,
>
>The rightard changes the subject and ignores the fact that the vast
>majority of the US's debt is a direct result of the policies of Reagan
>and Bush.
Um, genius, *you* changed the subject when you injected Reagan and
Bush into the discussion.
>
>>>>> >Obama's been in office ~16 months.
>>>>> >"The debt has risen by around 2.4 trillion dollars since Obama took
>>>>> >office in January 2009 and rose
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to one George W. Bush.
>>>>
>>>>Guess you missed the facts that Obama,
>>>
>>>Bush's wars, Bush's TARP, Bush's tax cuts, Bush's recession.
>>
>>Has Obama ended the wars and removed the troops?
>
>Oh, you're one of those cut and run rightards. A Reagan republican.
The answer would be "no" then. They are now Obama's wars.
Ray Fischer
> Nort...@tweet.net wrote:
>> >And there is your logical fallacy... the Democrats DIDN'T pass what
>> >they promised to.
>>
>> Not fallacy---it's correct. House passed.
>
>The fallacy doesn't come for it being passed - rather the bills passes
>aren't what the Democrat promised. I don't recall they every
>campaigning on a 1.2 trillion dollar (interest included) deficit
>buster that would actively destroy jobs.
Nor did they actually pass such a thing.
> Nor did they run on
>destroying the American medical system.
Nor have they done so.
> The American people can see
>the difference between what was pledged,
The sane American can see the difference between the facts and your
screeching propaganda and lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Russell Ronco
> Russell Ronco <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nort...@tweet.net wrote:
> >> >And there is your logical fallacy... the Democrats DIDN'T pass what
> >> >they promised to.
>
> >> Not fallacy---it's correct. House passed.
>
> >The fallacy doesn't come for it being passed - rather the bills passes
> >aren't what the Democrat promised. I don't recall they every
> >campaigning on a 1.2 trillion dollar (interest included) deficit
> >buster that would actively destroy jobs.
>
> Nor did they actually pass such a thing.
What empirical fact do you deny? That the program cost 1.2 trillion
(interest included) or that American has millions fewer jobs than it
did before the Stimulus Bill was passed by the Democrats?
> > Nor did they run on
> >destroying the American medical system.
>
> Nor have they done so.
About 60% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed... and that's while the
popular parts which the bill frontended are still in play - wait until
the paying far more to receive much less part starts.
> > The American people can see
> >the difference between what was pledged,
>
> The sane American can see the difference between the facts
...and what Obama delivered? You bet, Zepp.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
<gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 11, 6:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Russell Ronco <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Nort...@tweet.net wrote:
>> >> >And there is your logical fallacy... the Democrats DIDN'T pass what
>> >> >they promised to.
>>
>> >> Not fallacy---it's correct. House passed.
>>
>> >The fallacy doesn't come for it being passed - rather the bills passes
>> >aren't what the Democrat promised. I don't recall they every
>> >campaigning on a 1.2 trillion dollar (interest included) deficit
>> >buster that would actively destroy jobs.
>>
>> Nor did they actually pass such a thing.
>
>What empirical fact do you deny? That the program cost 1.2 trillion
>(interest included) or that American has millions fewer jobs than it
>did before the Stimulus Bill was passed by the Democrats?
>
>> > Nor did they run on
>> >destroying the American medical system.
>>
>> Nor have they done so.
>
>About 60% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed... and that's while the
>popular parts which the bill frontended are still in play - wait until
>the paying far more to receive much less part starts.
60% suck ass just like you do.
>
>> > The American people can see
>> >the difference between what was pledged,
>>
>> The sane American can see the difference between the facts
>
>...and what Obama delivered? You bet, Zepp.
You're greedy pervert.
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>> rfisc...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 11, 6:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Russell Ronco <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Nort...@tweet.net wrote:
>> >> >And there is your logical fallacy... the Democrats DIDN'T pass what
>> >> >they promised to.
>>
>> >> Not fallacy---it's correct. House passed.
>>
>> >The fallacy doesn't come for it being passed - rather the bills passes
>> >aren't what the Democrat promised. I don't recall they every
>> >campaigning on a 1.2 trillion dollar (interest included) deficit
>> >buster that would actively destroy jobs.
>>
>> Nor did they actually pass such a thing.
>
>What empirical fact do you deny?
All
> That the program cost 1.2 trillion
>(interest included)
What program is that?
> or that American has millions fewer jobs than it
>did before the Stimulus Bill was passed by the Democrats?
That too.
>> > Nor did they run on
>> >destroying the American medical system.
>>
>> Nor have they done so.
>
>About 60% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed.
That's not what you claimed, rightard. SHall we dismiss your claim
aboout the American medical system as being another lie?
>> > The American people can see
>> >the difference between what was pledged,
>>
>> The sane American can see the difference between the facts
>
>...and what Obama delivered?
And your malicious lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Buster Norris
>The below is a forgery by Buster.
Prove it......................
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>The below is a forgery by Buster.
>
>Prove it......................
It's obvious, forger.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Walter Harding
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:16:53 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco
>
>
>
> <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 11, 6:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Russell Ronco <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Nort...@tweet.net wrote:
> >> >> >And there is your logical fallacy... the Democrats DIDN'T pass what
> >> >> >they promised to.
>
> >> >> Not fallacy---it's correct. House passed.
>
> >> >The fallacy doesn't come for it being passed - rather the bills passes
> >> >aren't what the Democrat promised. I don't recall they every
> >> >campaigning on a 1.2 trillion dollar (interest included) deficit
> >> >buster that would actively destroy jobs.
>
> >> Nor did they actually pass such a thing.
>
> >What empirical fact do you deny? That the program cost 1.2 trillion
> >(interest included) or that American has millions fewer jobs than it
> >did before the Stimulus Bill was passed by the Democrats?
>
> >> > Nor did they run on
> >> >destroying the American medical system.
>
> >> Nor have they done so.
>
> >About 60% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed... and that's while the
> >the paying far more to receive much less part starts.
>
> 60% suck ass just like you do.
So, when Obama is elected, the will of the American people must never
be questioned. When the public comes to her senses, suddenly, they
"suck ass".
What do you tell yourself to justify your shameless hypocrisy?
Buster Norris
>Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>The below is a forgery by Buster.
>>
>>Prove it......................
>
>I'm an obvious forger.
We already knew that.........
Ray Fischer
I tell myself that you are a rightwing racist teabagger who probably
picks his ass and licks his fingers.
Russell Ronco
So, that's what you do, Zepp?
Perhaps you'll now understand why Americans are learning never to
trust a liberal again.
Ray Fischer
I'd lick your fingers after you pick my ass nits...
>Perhaps you'll now understand why Americans are learning never to
>trust a liberal again.
Americans are retarded mongoloid moron sheep who'll do what thay are
told by anyone who isn't white...
Russell Ronco
Notice how the racist card just isn't working like it once was?
Ray Fischer
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Buster NOrris
>> I tell myself that you are a rightwing racist teabagger who probably
>> picks his ass and licks his fingers.
>
>So, that's what you do, Zepp?
Do you even know who you're responding to, rightard?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Buster norris
>> Americans are retarded mongoloid moron sheep who'll do what thay are
>> told by anyone who isn't white...
>
>Notice how the racist card just isn't working like it once was?
And yet you rightards still cling to it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Russell Ronco
> Russell Ronco <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Buster norris
> >> Americans are retarded mongoloid moron sheep who'll do what thay are
> >> told by anyone who isn't white...
> >Notice how the racist card just isn't working like it once was?
> And yet you rightards still cling to it.
You DO understand that the phrase "the race card" refers to people who
scream "racist", don't you?
Buster Norris
You are the racist.
You hate me because I'm black.
Ray Fischer
wrote:
It's another buster norris forgery
Buster Norris
wrote:
Stop forging my name, ASSHOLE!!!
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Beam Me Up Scotty
On my computer, you're white. Does this mean I hate you for being white?
Ray Fischer
You hate me becsuse you are a hater, a Rightard, a Bushite,
Conservatard.
Why do you hate America?
Ray Fischer
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Steve
<bond...@att.net> wrote:
>On Jul 17, 2:31 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Another buster norris forgery
>
>If it wasn't obvious, to the NG readers, including you, the posters
>"Ray Fischer" and "Buster Norris" are the same person.
>
>One need only look to the original posts and see:
>Buster Norris; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1...@4ax.com
>Ray Fischer; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1...@4ax.com
>
Perhaps you should take a refresher course on Usenet headers...
then, perhaps you'd notice the same reference is in your own post...
The "reference" line in a Usenet header merely references the earlier
posts in the thread.
--
...watching Obamma supporters wimp and whine about the economy... PRICELESS
Info Junkie
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:13:12 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
>
> >On Jul 17, 2:31 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Another buster norris forgery
>
> >If it wasn't obvious, to the NG readers, including you, the posters
> >"Ray Fischer" and "Buster Norris" are the same person.
>
> >One need only look to the original posts and see:
> >Ray Fischer; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1i5lvlmpsi2jn4t...@4ax.com
>
> Perhaps you should take a refresher course on Usenet headers...
> then, perhaps you'd notice the same reference is in your own post...
>
> The "reference" line in a Usenet header merely references the earlier
> posts in the thread.
> --
> ...watching Obamma supporters wimp and whine about the economy... PRICELESS
Thanks for catching that. You are correct and I'm in the process of
correcting my error.
Info Junkie
> Another buster norris forgery
>
>
>
>
>
> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:40:00 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> ><Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Another buster norris forgery
If it wasn't obvious, to the NG readers, including you, the posters
"Ray Fischer" and "Buster Norris" are the same person. I may only
recommend that your obsession of claiming "forgery" be seriously
addressed by mental professional(s) that may assist you with your
delusions.
> >>> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:10 -0400, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:23:46 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco
> >>>>> <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Jul 14, 9:35 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>>>>>> Russell Ronco <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Buster norris
> >>>>>>>>> Americans are retarded mongoloid moron sheep who'll do what thay are
> >>>>>>>>> told by anyone who isn't white...
>
> >>>>>>>> Notice how the racist card just isn't working like it once was?
>
> >>>>>>> And yet you rightards still cling to it.
>
> >>>>>> You DO understand that the phrase "the race card" refers to people who
> >>>>>> scream "racist", don't you?
>
> >>>>> You are the racist.
>
> >>>>> You hate me because I'm black.
>
> >>On my computer, you're white. Does this mean I hate you for being white?
>
> >You hate me becsuse you are a hater, a Rightard, a Bushite,
> >Conservatard.
>
> >Why do you hate America?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brian Wraith
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:13:12 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
> <bond...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 17, 2:31 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Another buster norris forgery
>>
>> If it wasn't obvious, to the NG readers, including you, the posters
>> "Ray Fischer" and "Buster Norris" are the same person.
>>
>> One need only look to the original posts and see:
>> Buster Norris; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1...@4ax.com
>> Ray Fischer; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1...@4ax.com
>>
>
> Perhaps you should take a refresher course on Usenet headers...
> then, perhaps you'd notice the same reference is in your own post...
>
> The "reference" line in a Usenet header merely references the earlier
> posts in the thread.
I was wondering how long it would take someone to correct Junkie on this.
Info Junkie
wrote:
> On 7/17/2010 6:29 AM, Steve wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:13:12 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
>
> >> On Jul 17, 2:31 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>> Another buster norris forgery
>
> >> If it wasn't obvious, to the NG readers, including you, the posters
> >> "Ray Fischer" and "Buster Norris" are the same person.
>
> >> One need only look to the original posts and see:
> >> Ray Fischer; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1i5lvlmpsi2jn4t...@4ax.com
>
> > then, perhaps you'd notice the same reference is in your own post...
>
> > The "reference" line in a Usenet header merely references the earlier
> > posts in the thread.
>
> I was wondering how long it would take someone to correct Junkie on this
He corrected me shortly after I initially posted it.
Based on a little more research, here's a new review:
With the IP address as the sole indicator, Ray Fisher (IP
69.12.221.234) and Buster Norris (IP 207.91.172.210) may not be the
same person. This corrects my posts regarding this matter.
Brian Wraith
I guess that is one way to admit you were wrong, even if you didn't
apologize to the parties named.
Beam Me Up Scotty
I don't hate America, I hate Socialism that you brought to America that
can't coexist with our constitution, you have to either destroy the
constitution as it was written, or I have to destroy your Socialism.
You have imported a non native species that threatens the environment,
it's called Socialism and once it destroys the natural habitat (the
Constitution) of our Nation we will have a man made disaster cause by
you polluting my environment with Socialism.
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" and "Buster Norris" are the same person.
>
>One need only look to the original posts and see:
>Ray Fischer; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1...@4ax.com
Those are both posted by buster norris. This post was not.
Dumbass rightard.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 17, 2:31 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Another buster norris forgery
>>
>> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:40:00 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> ><Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Another buster norris forgery
>
>If it wasn't obvious, to the NG readers, including you, the posters
>"Ray Fischer" and "Buster Norris" are the same person.
It's obvious that you're a dumbass.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>I don't hate America, I hate Socialism that you brought to America that
You "hate" socialism because you've been told to hate "socialism" and
you've been told what "socialism" is supposed to be.
> you have to either destroy the
>constitution as it was written, or I have to destroy your Socialism.
You're insane.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Steve
De Nada..
Steve
>Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>I don't hate America, I hate Socialism that you brought to America that
>
>You "hate" socialism because you've been told to hate "socialism" and
>you've been told what "socialism" is supposed to be.
>
The only people who don't hate socialism are chronic failures looking
to pick other people's pockets.
Buster Norris
Buster Norris
>On Jul 17, 2:31 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Another buster norris forgery
>
>If it wasn't obvious, to the NG readers, including you, the posters
>"Ray Fischer" and "Buster Norris" are the same person.
Ray Fischer has been forging my posts for about a week!!!!!!!
He's a communist asshole!!!!!!!
>
>One need only look to the original posts and see:
>Buster Norris; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1...@4ax.com
>Ray Fischer; References: c4ch369lsvdi19po1...@4ax.com
>
>Fischer/Norris: I may only recommend that your obssession of claiming
>"forgery" be seriously addressed by mental professional(s) that may
>assist you with your delusions.
>
>>
>> Ray Fischer <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:40:00 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> ><Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Another buster norris forgery
>>
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>I don't hate America, I hate Socialism that you brought to America that
>>
>>You "hate" socialism because you've been told to hate "socialism" and
>>you've been told what "socialism" is supposed to be.
>>
>
>The only people who don't hate socialism are chronic failures looking
>to pick other people's pockets.
That coming from a parasite who leeches off of society.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Info Junkie
You have a point. I don't recall having conversed with him. Implying
he needed to be seen by mental professional(s) was uncalled for. My
apologies to Buster Norris.