Americans KNOW that Republican Bush rather than Obama IS responsible for the poor economy

[Too_Many_Tools]

Americans KNOW that Bush and his Republicans are responsible for the
poor economy and its slow recovery.

Even HALF of Republicans admit that Bush is responsible.

That means that over half of Republicans will be voting for Obama this
November rather than to trust another Republican.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

Most say Bush to blame for weak U.S. economy, poll finds
Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:36am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About two-thirds of Americans believe
Republican former U.S. President George W. Bush is responsible for the
nation's struggling economy, with a smaller percentage blaming
Democratic President Barack Obama, a Gallup poll showed on Thursday.

About 68 percent of the more than 1,000 adults surveyed nationwide
said Bush, who left office in January 2009, deserves a "moderate
amount" or a "great deal" of the blame for the U.S. economic woes
compared to 52 percent who pointed to his successor Obama, the poll
found.

The results were released as Obama prepared to give a major economic
speech later on Thursday as part of his campaign to win re-election on
November 6. He is seeking to convince voters that his economic
remedies are working and that his Republican rival Mitt Romney's
policies would trigger an economic crisis.

Poll respondents who identified themselves as Republicans were split,
with 49 percent saying Bush deserved a moderate amount or great deal
of the blame while 51 percent said Bush deserved not much of the blame
or none at all. They expressed even more blame for Obama, however,
with 83 percent holding him largely responsible for the state of the
economy, the poll found.

Among Democrats, 90 percent blamed Bush for the weak economy and only
19 percent said Obama should carry much of the blame, according to the
poll, conducted by telephone June 7 to 10.

"Republicans, in short, are significantly more willing to blame their
most recent Republican president than are Democrats willing to blame
Obama," Gallup said.

Independent voters, who could play a critical role in the November
election, were more likely to blame Bush (67 percent) than Obama (51
percent). Fewer independents blamed Obama than Gallup's last results
in September, when 60 percent pointed to him, the poll found.

Many Americans are still struggling to recover financially from the
nation's deepest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s,
and Obama is trying to regroup after recent setbacks, including an
anemic May jobs report.

"Americans continue to place more blame for the nation's economic
problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left
office more than three years ago," Gallup said. "... This suggests
that Obama's argument that he is on the right track and needs more
time to turn the economy around could fall on receptive ears,
particularly those of independents."

Bush, who served two four-year terms as president, has been unable to
shake the blame since Gallup began tracking the economic finger-
pointing in 2009, and has seen about 70 percent of those polled
holding him responsible since mid-2010.

Critics say Bush's tax cuts combined with increased spending to fight
two wars, among other costs, helped plunge the nation into a deep
economic crisis.

The poll had a maximum margin of sampling error of plus-or-minus 4
percentage points.

(Reporting By Susan Heavey; Editing by Will Dunham)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>Americans KNOW that Bush and his Republicans are responsible for the
>poor economy and its slow recovery.
>
>Even HALF of Republicans admit that Bush is responsible.
>
>That means that over half of Republicans will be voting for Obama this
>November rather than to trust another Republican.
>
>Laugh..laugh..laugh..
>
>TMT
>
>Most say Bush to blame for weak U.S. economy, poll finds

Many still believe the earth is flat. Hell, there are even some dumb
motherfuckers who don't know Zimmerman is a Democrat.

[chuckle]

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 18, 6:38 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

LOL..woof..woof...got that ED fixed yet?

And who suddenly can't read?

LAUGH..LAUGH..LAUGH...

TMT

[K. Morse]

On 18 Jun 2012, Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> posted some
news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:

> Liberals SAY that Bush and his Republicans are responsible for the

> poor economy and its slow recovery.

But everybody knows liberals lie.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

> TMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-
freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis
a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are
the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to
set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It
would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would
determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their
ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not
adequately hedge against rising interest rates.


''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-
related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the
stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and
importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told
the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing
Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to
appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less
concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential
political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the
companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government
subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit
guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into
financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at
significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the
companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal
securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant
lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the
Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation
based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress
could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the
fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to
adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing.
''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable
accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates
the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should
have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in
1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about
regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders
and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher
oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said
efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might
diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This
year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight
are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading
rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae
came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and
assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the
company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive,
endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as
well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines
said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one
that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the
company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president
select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the
efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and
Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a
statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their
bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to
$53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The
price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from
96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage
Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much
influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,''
said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has
proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads
a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not
explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only
hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-
class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a
bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National
Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that
tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment
to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something
from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining
power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,''
Mr. Watt said.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

So what made you get an erection THIS time? Thinking about Bush?

http://tinyurl.com/TMT-ERECTION

[Gray Guest]

Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
8983-837...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:

>
>

It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress completely
owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last 2 years of
Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.

So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what others
may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility for anything
they've done.

Why do we need Democrats?

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[Hawke]

On 6/19/2012 5:53 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
> 8983-837...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>>
>
> It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress completely
> owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last 2 years of
> Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.
>
> So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
> anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what others
> may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility for anything
> they've done.
>
> Why do we need Democrats?

To pick up the pieces and rebuild the country after the republicans are
through blowing it up.

Hawke

[Oglethorpe]

"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:jrqcgl$pee$4...@speranza.aioe.org...

Explain why Democrats needed $5 trillion in new deficit spending to recover
from a $161 billion budget deficit and 4.7% unemployment.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 19, 5:01 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

>
> news:jrqcgl$pee$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/19/2012 5:53 AM, Gray Guest wrote:

> >> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
> >> 8983-837094489...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress completely
> >> owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last 2 years of
> >> Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.
>
> >> So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
> >> anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what others
> >> may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility for anything
> >> they've done.
>
> >> Why do we need Democrats?
>
> > To pick up the pieces and rebuild the country after the republicans are
> > through blowing it up.
>
> Explain why Democrats needed $5 trillion in new deficit spending to recover

> from a $161 billion budget deficit and 4.7% unemployment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bush.

TMT

[RogerN]

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

>Americans KNOW that Bush and his Republicans are responsible for the
>poor economy and its slow recovery.

<snip>

Nearly every day the company I work at has new position openings, there are
two that I have applied for and a die maker position was just posted today.
Any one of these positions will most likely get me a 10% raise to around
$29.75/hr plus benefits and an extra 7 vacation days per year, from 15 to
22.

Thank you Mr. Bush and the Republicans! Keep up the good work, hope Obama
and the Democrats don't screw it up any worse than they already have.

RogerN

[Jak Walker]

You work for Bush? Is he responsible for all good things in your
life?
He sure has you fooled.

Sounds like you're union. Under Romney those jobs will pay $10 or be
shipped to China.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:53:12
+0000 (UTC) typed in misc.survivalism the following:

>Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
>8983-837...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>>
>
>It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress completely
>owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last 2 years of
>Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.
>
>So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
>anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what others
>may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility for anything
>they've done.
>

You have to realize, that the Democrats were outthought by George
"Dubya" Bush - the dumbest President in the history of Presidents.
Which just goes to show you, how dumb the Democrats are.
As Obi-wan once observed"The Force can have a strong influence on
the weak-minded." Who knew "Dubya" was his name as a Jedi Master?
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

[Gray Guest]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in
news:cpCdncXH1oAjR33S...@mchsi.com:

To bring down the economy so they could fundementally change the US.

[Too_Many_Tools]

LOL..Damn...Roger has an American job that Bush didn't
offshore...Romney will move your job offshore and pocket the
profit...better get your bags packed and start learning to bow to your
Chinese master Roger.

TMT

[Hawke]

That 5 trillion in new debt came from the same place as the 5 trillion
in debt that Bush ran up. It keeps coming from the Bush tax cuts, the
lack of revenue from a slow economy, and the expense of the two wars. If
you look at the budget you see that Obama has not really added that much
to it. It keeps piling up from what was started in the Bush administration.

I'm not saying that to defend Obama or to attack Bush. It's just a fact
that the reason we are going so far into debt is that the tax cuts, the
wars, and the recession, put us into a situation where we have a
structural shortage of income. Until the government changes from not
collecting enough and spending more than what comes in we will keep
going into debt. It's not really Obama's fault. But regardless of how we
got so much into debt we have to start working it off now.

Hawke

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 6/19/2012 7:39 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:53:12
> +0000 (UTC) typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
>> 8983-837...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress completely
>> owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last 2 years of
>> Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.
>>
>> So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
>> anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what others
>> may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility for anything
>> they've done.
>>
>
> You have to realize, that the Democrats were outthought by George
> "Dubya" Bush - the dumbest President in the history of Presidents.
> Which just goes to show you, how dumb the Democrats are.
> As Obi-wan once observed"The Force can have a strong influence on
> the weak-minded." Who knew "Dubya" was his name as a Jedi Master?

Anybody that thinks Bush is somebody to admire for what he did as
president is a certifiable nut case. Does that mean you?

Hawke

[Hawke]

Roger is so confused that he actually thinks Bush helped him out and
Obama hurt him. Now, you really have to have your head screwed on
backwards to think that.

Hawke

[Oglethorpe]

"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

news:jrtp9h$vrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 6/19/2012 3:01 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>> news:jrqcgl$pee$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On 6/19/2012 5:53 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
>>>> 8983-837...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress
>>>> completely
>>>> owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last 2 years of
>>>> Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.
>>>>
>>>> So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
>>>> anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what
>>>> others
>>>> may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility for anything
>>>> they've done.
>>>>
>>>> Why do we need Democrats?
>>>
>>>
>>> To pick up the pieces and rebuild the country after the republicans are
>>> through blowing it up.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Explain why Democrats needed $5 trillion in new deficit spending to
>> recover
>> from a $161 billion budget deficit and 4.7% unemployment.
>
>
> That 5 trillion in new debt came from the same place as the 5 trillion in
> debt that Bush ran up. It keeps coming from the Bush tax cuts,

That's a lie. Tax cuts are not spending. Deficits are caused by spending
more than you take in, fucktard.

[Gray Guest]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:jrtp9h$vrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

So the spending in excess of income had nothing to do with it?

Fascinating!

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 20, 9:31 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

>
> news:jrtp9h$vrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/19/2012 3:01 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:

> >> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

> >>news:jrqcgl$pee$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >>> On 6/19/2012 5:53 AM, Gray Guest wrote:

> >>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
> >>>> 8983-837094489...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>

> >>>> It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress
> >>>> completely
> >>>> owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last 2 years of
> >>>> Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.
>
> >>>> So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
> >>>> anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what
> >>>> others
> >>>> may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility for anything
> >>>> they've done.
>
> >>>> Why do we need Democrats?
>
> >>> To pick up the pieces and rebuild the country after the republicans are
> >>> through blowing it up.
>
> >> Explain why Democrats needed $5 trillion in new deficit spending to
> >> recover
> >> from a $161 billion budget deficit and 4.7% unemployment.
>
> > That 5 trillion in new debt came from the same place as the 5 trillion in
> > debt that Bush ran up. It keeps coming from the Bush tax cuts,
>
> That's a lie. Tax cuts are not spending. Deficits are caused by spending

> more than you take in, fucktard.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Nope...tax cuts are spending...and all on Bush.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

> Hawke- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Review Roger's posts and it is easy to see why his exwife is an
ex....the guy is borderline commitable.

TMT

[Jeff M]

Deficits are caused by too much spending, or by too little revenue, or
both. Thus, tThere are two factors that create a deficit, spending and
revenue. Decreasing the former or increasing the latter, or both, will
create or expand a deficit, while decreasing the former or increasing
the latter, or both, will reduce or eliminate a deficit. How can you
not grasp such a simple concept?

[Jeff M]

The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.

[RogerN]

"Hawke" wrote in message news:jrtpgc$vrp$3...@speranza.aioe.org...

<snip>

>> LOL..Damn...Roger has an American job that Bush didn't
>> offshore...Romney will move your job offshore and pocket the
>> profit...better get your bags packed and start learning to bow to your
>> Chinese master Roger.
>
>
>Roger is so confused that he actually thinks Bush helped him out and Obama
>hurt him. Now, you really have to have your head screwed on backwards to
>think that.
>
>Hawke

According to TMT, Bush and the Republicans are responsible, read the subject
line if you don't believe me.

RogerN

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 20, 9:28 pm, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
> "Hawke"  wrote in messagenews:jrtpgc$vrp$3...@speranza.aioe.org...

According to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The same ones who will reelect Obama in November.

TMT

[K. Morse]

On 20 Jun 2012, Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> posted some
news:ced198fc-483b-439c...@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:

> According to the DEAD ACORN VOTERS.
>
> The same ones who will vote dozens of times each for Obama in
> November.
>
> TMT

Fixed that for ya. Knew it was what you wanted to say.

[RichA]

Clinton's mea-culpa on how HE caused the financial crisis.

Apr 17, 2010 7:20pm
Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating
Derivatives*
Email 120 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

In my EXCLUSIVE “This Week” interview, I asked former President Bill
Clinton if he thought he got bad advice on regulating complex
financial instruments known as derivatives from his former Treasury
Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. He acknowledged that he
was wrong to take the advice of those advising him against regulating
derivatives.

(Note: please see update at the bottom of this post.)

“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong
to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that
these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of
investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and
any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them
transparency,” Clinton told me.

“And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all
sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it
without transparency.”

The former President also said he was also wrong about understanding
the consequences if the derivatives market tanked. “The most
important flaw was even if less than 1 percent of the total investment
community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was
involved that if they went bad, they could affect a 100 percent of the
investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the citizens in countries,
not investors, and I was wrong about that.”

Clinton also blamed the Bush administration for scaling back on
policing the financial industry. “I think what happened was the SEC
and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office was just let
go.”

Much of the financial carnage of the past several years, Clinton said,
could have been prevented if only his appointed regulator had been
kept on after he left office.. “I think if Arthur Levitt had been on
the job at the SEC, my last SEC commissioner, an enormous percentage
of what we’ve been through in the last eight or nine years would not
have happened.”

Clinton said he regretted not trying to regulate derivatives, but that
Republicans would have stood in the way. “Now, I think if I had
tried to regulate them because the Republicans were the majority in
the Congress, they would have stopped it. But I wish I should have
been caught trying. I mean, that was a mistake I made.”

WATCH VIDEO HERE:

TAPPER: One of the things that President Obama is pushing for is
regulation of derivatives, and also with a thing called the Volcker
rule, he’s trying to separate commercial banking interests from
investment banking interests. These were things that were the
opposite policies of Treasury Security Rubin and Summers at that time,
do you think in retrospect they gave you bad advice on these issues?

CLINTON: Well, I think on the derivatives – before the Glass-Steagall
Act was repealed, it had been breached. There was already a total
merger practically of commercial and investment banking, and really
the main thing that the Glass-Steagall Act did was to give us some
power to regulate it – the repeal. And also to give old fashion
traditional banks in all over America the right to take an investment
interest if they wanted to forestall bankruptcy. Sadly none of them
did that. Mostly it was just the continued blurring of the lines, but
only about a third of all the money loaned today is loaned through
traditional banking channels and that was well underway before that
legislation was signed. So I don’t feel the same way about that.

I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus
after I left office was just let go. I think if Arthur Levitt had
been on the job at the SEC, my last SEC commissioner, an enormous
percentage of what we’ve been through in the last eight or nine years
would not have happened. I feel very strongly about it. I think it’s
important to have vigorous oversight.

Now, on derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was
wrong to take it because the argument on derivatives was that these
things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors
will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra
transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them
transparency. And the flaw in that argument was that first of all
sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it
without transparency.

And secondly, the most important flaw was even if less than 1 percent
of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges,
so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect a
100 percent of the investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the
citizens in countries, not investors, and I was wrong about that.
I’ve said that all along. Now, I think if I had tried to regulate
them because the Republicans were the majority in the Congress, they
would have stopped it. But I wish I should have been caught trying.
I mean, that was a mistake I made.

*UPDATE: After the show Sunday, Clinton Counselor Doug Band wrote me
to say that "during the interview, reflecting on a derivatives debate
that occurred twelve years ago, President Clinton inadvertently
conflated an analysis he received on a specific derivatives proposal
with then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's arguments against
any regulation of derivatives."

Band wrote that President Clinton "still wishes, as he has said
several times, that he had pursued legislation to provide additional
regulatory authority in this area, even though the Republican majority
in Congress would have blocked such an effort. And he remains
convinced that he received excellent advice on the economy and the
financial system from his economic team, led by treasury Secretaries
Bentsen, Rubin and Summers; that Chairman Greenspan served the nation
well during those 8 years; and that SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, and
others in regulatory positions fulfilled their responsibilities in a
manner that supported remarkable growth without improvident risk."

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 21, 12:29 am, K. Morse <inva...@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2012, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> posted somenews:ced198fc-483b-439c...@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:

> Fixed that for ya.  Knew it was what you wanted to say.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...poor little conservative...can't stand the truth can you.

What will you do when Obama is reelected...stomp your tiny little
feet?

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

[Homer Stille Cummings]

On 6/21/2012 10:20 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> [lies flushed]

Barry Soetoro owns the political issues of the economy now. You can
screech that Bush fucked up the economy all you want, but it doesn't
mean anything. Barry Soetoro said he was going to fix it and fix it
quickly, and he didn't do it. He got everything he asked for to fox it,
and he didn't do it.

He owns it now.

[de...@dudu.org]

I'm figuring they're all going to go nuts and start shooting up their
little trailer parks.

>TMT

[Dano]

"Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
news:_KGdnZKB3OYa_H7S...@giganews.com...

=========================================

Keep repeating the same lies long enough and some will actually believe you.
You're no different than that Nigerian prince who keeps sending out those
infamous emails.

[Homer Stille Cummings]

On 6/21/2012 11:55 AM, Dano wrote:
> "Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
> news:_KGdnZKB3OYa_H7S...@giganews.com...
>
> On 6/21/2012 10:20 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>> [lies flushed]
>
> Barry Soetoro owns the political issues of the economy now. You can
> screech that Bush fucked up the economy all you want, but it doesn't
> mean anything. Barry Soetoro said he was going to fix it and fix it
> quickly, and he didn't do it. He got everything he asked for to fox it,
> and he didn't do it.
>
> He owns it now.
>
> =========================================
>
> Keep repeating the same lies long enough and

It's not a lie, junior. Barry Soetoro owns the economy now as a
political issue. He said he was going to fix it, and he failed.

[Jeff M]

Public polling says otherwise. The general public still assigns far
more blame for the present state of the economy to Bush and the
Republicans than to Obama and the Democrats, as to most political
economics experts. Although I can certainly understand the right wing
effort to dodge all responsibility for what they've done and to try to
point their collective finger at Obama as solely to blame for the crash
that began well before he took office.

[Dano]

"Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message

news:1OadnUthHdmt7X7S...@giganews.com...

====================================

The stench of desperation permeates the right wing which has tried (and
failed) to make every excuse imaginable for creating this mess. You clowns
started this very refrain 30 minutes after this man took the oath of office,
In fact many (probably including you) didn't even wait that long. The fact
is, it took Bush 8 years to fuck things up this badly. It will certainly
take longer than a single term to right the ship. If the Republicans wish
to restore their party, they best learn to cooperate and help solve our
problems and abandon the stupid and traitorous tactic of blocking every
effort to fix our problems in the empty hope of making Democrats look bad.
In other words...moderate Republicans need to take back their party from the
reactionary and radical right wing that has all but destroyed that once
proud party.

[Homer Stille Cummings]

On 6/21/2012 1:32 PM, Dano wrote:
> "Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
> news:1OadnUthHdmt7X7S...@giganews.com...
>
> On 6/21/2012 11:55 AM, Dano wrote:
>> "Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
>> news:_KGdnZKB3OYa_H7S...@giganews.com...
>>
>> On 6/21/2012 10:20 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>> [lies flushed]
>>
>> Barry Soetoro owns the political issues of the economy now. You can
>> screech that Bush fucked up the economy all you want, but it doesn't
>> mean anything. Barry Soetoro said he was going to fix it and fix it
>> quickly, and he didn't do it. He got everything he asked for to fox it,
>> and he didn't do it.
>>
>> He owns it now.
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> Keep repeating the same lies long enough and
>
> It's not a lie, junior. Barry Soetoro owns the economy now as a
> political issue. He said he was going to fix it, and he failed.
>
> ====================================
>
> The stench of desperation permeates the

Barry Soetoro owns the anemic recovery, the 8%+ unemployment and the
still-dropping labor force participation rate, junior. That's just the
way it is.

[Dano]

"Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message

news:ycydnWh7NZ1LEn7S...@giganews.com...

======================================

Maybe so. But that's NOT true about President Barack Obama. This Barry
Soetoro dude is a figment of your virulent and racist imagination. Stop on
by the clue store and buy a few eh?

[Too_Many_Tools]

LOL...you can't stand The Truth can you?

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

> >TMT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...in other words act like they normally do.

Accoding to Triggerman, bulletproof vests save more lives than guns
do.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

> political issue.  He said he was going to fix it, and he failed.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...you just can't stand The Truth.

Looking forward to hearing your head exploding in November.

TMT

[Homer Stille Cummings]

That's Barry.

[Homer Stille Cummings]

On 6/21/2012 3:41 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2:04 pm, Homer Stille Cummings <ag@just_us.göv> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 11:55 AM, Dano wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
>>> news:_KGdnZKB3OYa_H7S...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> On 6/21/2012 10:20 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>>> [lies flushed]
>>
>>> Barry Soetoro owns the political issues of the economy now. You can
>>> screech that Bush fucked up the economy all you want, but it doesn't
>>> mean anything. Barry Soetoro said he was going to fix it and fix it
>>> quickly, and he didn't do it. He got everything he asked for to fox it,
>>> and he didn't do it.
>>
>>> He owns it now.
>>
>>> =========================================
>>
>>> Keep repeating the same lies long enough and
>>
>> It's not a lie, junior. Barry Soetoro owns the economy now as a
>> political issue. He said he was going to fix it, and he failed.
>

> LOL...you just can't stand The Truth.

Of course I can - I'm telling it to you.

[Too_Many_Tools]

> that began well before he took office.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep...and those Americans will vote in November for Obama for a second
term.

And Republican heads will EXPLODE across the land.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 21, 3:32 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Homer Stille Cummings"  wrote in messagenews:1OadnUthHdmt7X7S...@giganews.com...

> proud party.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well said.

I expect the GOP to implode.

I would not be surprised if some of the conservative fanatics try to
kill off some of their own before it is over.

TMT

TMT

[Hawke]

On 6/20/2012 7:31 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

> news:jrtp9h$vrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>> On 6/19/2012 3:01 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>> news:jrqcgl$pee$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 6/19/2012 5:53 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
>>>>> 8983-837...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress
>>>>> completely
>>>>> owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last 2 years of
>>>>> Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
>>>>> anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what
>>>>> others
>>>>> may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility for anything
>>>>> they've done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we need Democrats?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To pick up the pieces and rebuild the country after the republicans are
>>>> through blowing it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Explain why Democrats needed $5 trillion in new deficit spending to
>>> recover
>>> from a $161 billion budget deficit and 4.7% unemployment.
>>
>>
>> That 5 trillion in new debt came from the same place as the 5 trillion in
>> debt that Bush ran up. It keeps coming from the Bush tax cuts,
>

> That's a lie. Tax cuts are not spending. Deficits are caused by spending

> more than you take in, fucktard.

Get something done about the brain damage you got at birth because you
still haven't got a brain in working condition. First thing you need to
do is learn to listen to people like me that are giving you the facts.
As Jeff said, without the tax cuts and the wars we wouldn't have much
debt. In other words before what Bush did we were taking in enough money
to pay for what we were spending. What Bush did was change it so that
the revenue was far short of what we were spending. If he had only left
things alone we wouldn't have this giant debt.

Right now there is nothing Obama can do to stop it from continuing. But
it is slowly changing. He is ending the wars and that will save us a lot
of money like the 800 billion we blew in Iraq on nothing. The recession
is now a slow recovery so we have more revenue. All that is left is to
raise taxes on the top 1% and the other 14% so that we can bring
spending and revenue in line with each other. Spending was never out of
control. But when Bush fixed it so the revenue dropped (taxes) and
tricked us into war (spending) then we started into debt. When Obama is
reelected he will do what is needed to start bringing down the debt, and
that is something no republican has done in decades. All of them sent us
into big debt.

Hawke

[Hawke]

I had a teacher that put it very simply. He said all deficits are is
uncollected taxes. That makes it pretty easy to understand. At least it
was for me.

Hawke

[Hawke]

He says that because he say the same poll I did that said just that.
Most Americans hold Bush responsible for our economic woes, not Obama.
What's sad is that another poll said that 69% of Americans believed that
Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks. But then, that was because of
the propaganda from the Bush White House that fooled them into believing
that.

Hawke

[Hawke]

Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
responsible for the economy is the president. Fortunately most of us
know better. By the way, now that gasoline prices have declined I don't
hear you praising Obama for it. You and your folks were blaming him when
the prices were high, remember? Now that they are down I don't hear you
thanking him. Why not? It's all his fault what gas costs, right?

Same for the economy, right? He's the only one responsible if it's good
or bad. Everyone knows it's not that simple except for morons. When
republicans filibuster everything Obama tries to do to get the economy
going you can't blame him when things don't get better. In fact, most
people are blaming the republicans not Obama because they know the
republicans are purposely stopping Obama from fixing the economy. Think
about it. First the republicans broke the economy and now they are
blocking the president from fixing it. How could anyone want people like
that running things? You'd have to be a fool.

Hawke

[Hawke]

That's when the "cull" will start. When Obama is reelected the
republicans will be so hysterical they will start culling themselves. If
we're lucky what is left of normal republicans will string up the far
righties that have driven the party into the right field bushes and put
the rest back under the rock they crawled out from.

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 6/21/2012 5:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 11:01 AM, Homer Stille Cummings wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 10:20 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>> [lies flushed]
>>
>> Barry Soetoro owns the political issues of the economy now. You can
>> screech that Bush fucked up the economy all you want, but it doesn't
>> mean anything. Barry Soetoro said he was going to fix it and fix it
>> quickly, and he didn't do it. He got everything he asked for to fox it,
>> and he didn't do it.
>>
>> He owns it now.
>
>
> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
> responsible for the economy is the president.

That's not what I said. I said that politically, at this time, Obama
owns the economy.

Regardless of who is responsible, Obama said he was going to fix what
was wrong when he took office. He hasn't done it.

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
news:a72dnbju1tA9GH_S...@giganews.com:

> On 6/20/2012 7:34 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in

>> news:jrtp9h$vrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>>
>>> On 6/19/2012 3:01 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:jrqcgl$pee$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>> On 6/19/2012 5:53 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
>>>>>> 8983-837...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress
>>>>>> completely owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the
>>>>>> last 2 years of Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled
>>>>>> Congress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of
>>>>>> doing anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine
>>>>>> about what others may or may not have done, while dodging any
>>>>>> responsibility for anything they've done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we need Democrats?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To pick up the pieces and rebuild the country after the
>>>>> republicans are through blowing it up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Explain why Democrats needed $5 trillion in new deficit spending to
>>>> recover from a $161 billion budget deficit and 4.7% unemployment.
>>>
>>>
>>> That 5 trillion in new debt came from the same place as the 5
>>> trillion in debt that Bush ran up. It keeps coming from the Bush tax

>>> cuts, the lack of revenue from a slow economy, and the expense of
>>> the two wars. If you look at the budget you see that Obama has not
>>> really added that much to it. It keeps piling up from what was
>>> started in the Bush administration.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that to defend Obama or to attack Bush. It's just a
>>> fact that the reason we are going so far into debt is that the tax
>>> cuts, the wars, and the recession, put us into a situation where we
>>> have a structural shortage of income. Until the government changes
>>> from not collecting enough and spending more than what comes in we
>>> will keep going into debt. It's not really Obama's fault. But
>>> regardless of how we got so much into debt we have to start working
>>> it off now.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So the spending in excess of income had nothing to do with it?
>>
>> Fascinating!
>
> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
> spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.

That must be then why Obama extended the Bush taxcuts for two more years,
removed 2% from the payment for Social Security and Medicare and
escalated the war in Afghanistan....calling it the "right" war.


--

Some folks must learn to look at their problems as their dogs do....
If you can't hump them or eat them, ... piss on them ... walk away!!

Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Oglethorpe]

"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

news:js0c5d$8iq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

You're a lying fucktard who wouldn't know a fact if it tried to bite your
nomn-existabnt balls off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010_.jpg

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=86&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2001&LastYear=2010&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid

2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
Federal Government total Revenue 3155.6 3000.5 3071.4 3296
3691.6 4028.3 4228.8 4107.9 3752.2
5 years revenue increased 3 decreased v ^
^ ^ ^ ^ v v
Tax cuts (TC)
(TC) (TC) (TC) (TC) (TC)
2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
Total Budget Surplus or Deficit
$128 -158 -378 -412 -368 -295
-161 -438 -2,082
Deficit went down v went up ^



When you wrote"It is documented from 2001 that the Bush admin spent more
than any admin in history including the Obama admin."

Is this the documentation?
2001 2002
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Federal Government total Revenue 3155.6 3000.5 3071.4 3296
3691.6 4028.3 4228.8 4107.9 3752.2
Total expenditures 3220.8 3422.9 3624.6
3827 4109.9 4319.8 4636.9 5020.2 5344.9
Net lending or net borrowing
-65.1 -422.4 -553.3 -531.1 -418.3 -291.6 -408.1
-912.3 -1592.7

$2 trillion in economic losses...
Then $400 billion in Federal loans for 9/11 victims,businesses, (Airlines
... took nearly 6 years to recover from
3 days no flights, hotels suffered major major problems but you forget that?

This is from a Report to Congress - September 2002 :The Economic Effects of
9/11: A Retrospective Assessment
* Nearly 18,000 businesses were dislocated, disrupted or destroyed by
9/11
* Gross City Product (GCP)[NYC] was estimated to have been reduced by
approximately $27.3 billion
over the last 3 months of 2001 and all of 2002.
* Employers reported that between September 15, 2001 and March 30, 2002
they called 462 extended mass
layoffs that were directly or indirectly attributable to the attacks.
* Almost 130,000 employees lost their jobs in these actions, with 9 out
of 10 let go within 2 months of the attacks.
The air transportation industry laid off 38% of these employees, and
the accommodations (hotel and motel)
industry, 23%. Although employers in 33 states called terrorist-related
layoffs, the majority of events and worker
displacement occurred in just five states (i.e., California, Nevada,
Illinois, New York, and Texas).
* Industrial production fell 1.1% in September, the largest single
decline since it began to fall in July 2000, and
another 0.6% in October. The unemployment rate rose to 5.0% in
September (a difference from August that was
not statistically significantly) and to 5.4% in October.

* the airlines lost approximately $1.4 billion in revenue during the
four-day shutdown of the national aviation system
in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
* The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act
(Stabilization Act)(P.L. 107-42) signed into law
on September 22, 2001, gave the airlines access to up to $15 billion in
short-term assistance.
* As part of the $40 billion emergency appropriation (P.L. 107- 38)
passed by Congress and signed by the
President in September 2001,

The anthrax attacks in October 2001 had a far more dramatic and
immediate effect, not upon the agriculture
economy per se, but upon the realization that U.S. farms and the food
supply are highly vulnerable to bioterrorism.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell a record 685. By the close of
business on Friday September 21st the
Dow had dropped about 15%. The total U.S. market capitalization
dropped nearly $2 trillion.
http://fmonitor.blogspot.com/2010/09/september-11th-financial-retrospective.html
Then we have the worst hurricanes on record.
Does Katrina with $81 billion in direct losses, jobs wiped out mean
anything to you???

And you also evidently have NO idea of the economic terrorist attack on
9/18/2008 when in 2 1/2 hours
$500 Billion was taken out of the banking system.
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-world-almost-came-to-end-at-2pm-on.html

[Gray Guest]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:a72dnbju1tA9GH_SnZ2dnUVZ_u-
dn...@giganews.com:

> On 6/20/2012 7:34 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in

>> news:jrtp9h$vrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>>
>>> On 6/19/2012 3:01 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:jrqcgl$pee$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>> On 6/19/2012 5:53 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
>>>>>> 8983-837...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been 3.5 years dickless. 2 of thoise years had a Congress
>>>>>> completely owned by Democrats and a Democrat President. And the last
>>>>>> 2 years of Bushe's 8 years had a Democrat controlled Congress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what yuo are saying is that the Democrats are incapable of doing
>>>>>> anything good for the country, all they can do is ehine about what
>>>>>> others may or may not have done, while dodging any responsibility
for
>>>>>> anything they've done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we need Democrats?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To pick up the pieces and rebuild the country after the republicans
>>>>> are through blowing it up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Explain why Democrats needed $5 trillion in new deficit spending to
>>>> recover from a $161 billion budget deficit and 4.7% unemployment.
>>>
>>>
>>> That 5 trillion in new debt came from the same place as the 5 trillion

>>> in debt that Bush ran up. It keeps coming from the Bush tax cuts, the
>>> lack of revenue from a slow economy, and the expense of the two wars.
If
>>> you look at the budget you see that Obama has not really added that
much
>>> to it. It keeps piling up from what was started in the Bush
>>> administration.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that to defend Obama or to attack Bush. It's just a fact
>>> that the reason we are going so far into debt is that the tax cuts, the
>>> wars, and the recession, put us into a situation where we have a
>>> structural shortage of income. Until the government changes from not
>>> collecting enough and spending more than what comes in we will keep
>>> going into debt. It's not really Obama's fault. But regardless of how
we
>>> got so much into debt we have to start working it off now.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So the spending in excess of income had nothing to do with it?
>>
>> Fascinating!
>
> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
> spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.
>
>
>

Perhaps you will explain to the class why, with a solid veto proof majority
in the House and Senate and a Democrat President from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011
those "tax cuts for the rich" have remained in place?

I think it would just as fair to say the "Obama maintianed tax cuts". If I
was the kind of fool to depend on erroneous slogans to make my point that
is.

Just sayin'.

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[Too_Many_Tools]

> Hawke- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with you on this.

As the GOP continues to lose, lose, lose it will turn inward and do
some serious culling.

It happens even now...ever here of Larry Craig or Mark Foley any more?

And where is George Bush Jr. when the Party needs him to campaign for
Romney?

We can expect tons of conservative money thrown around in desperation
to prop up the empty suits that are presented in the hopes that
Americans will be duped.

But Americans remember who cost them TRILLIONS.

The Republicans.

The question I ask is am I better off than four years ago...and the
answer is YES.

So my vote as will America's will go with Obama.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

> was wrong when he took office.  He hasn't done it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Who America thinks owns the economy owns the economy.

The American public thinks that Bush aka the Republicans still own it.

Bad news for your conservative boy...his Magic Underwear won't save
him.

And you can stomp your little feet all you want...it won't change
America's opinion of the Republicans.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 21, 8:21 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote innews:a72dnbju1tA9GH_S...@giganews.com:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/20/2012 7:34 PM, Gray Guest wrote:

> >> Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in

> >>news:jrtp9h$vrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> >>> On 6/19/2012 3:01 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:

> >>>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

> >>>>news:jrqcgl$pee$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >>>>> On 6/19/2012 5:53 AM, Gray Guest wrote:

> >>>>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:08f6af4a-7c9e-4489-
> >>>>>> 8983-837094489...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com:

> RD (The Sandman)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...boy you sure lie a lot.

Go review the history on the tax cuts that he was FORCED TO ACCEPT.

I remember the Republicans holding care to children hostage for
it...conservatives should be really proud of that.

If the BUSH tax cuts were gone, the country would have now 500 BILLION
DOLLARS of revenue now...and the deficit would be that much less.

Now tell me how many jobs those rich folks have created with those 500
BILLION DOLLARS that the Republicans gave them.

TMT

[Dano]

"Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message

news:7rmdnS-MmMcEOH7S...@giganews.com...

>
> Maybe so. But that's NOT true about President Barack Obama.

That's Barry.

==================================

Whatever you choose to call him, he is superior to you in every conceivable
way.

Your disrespect just affirms that.

[Flint]

On 6/21/2012 8:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 11:01 AM, Homer Stille Cummings wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 10:20 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>> [lies flushed]
>>
>> Barry Soetoro owns the political issues of the economy now. You can
>> screech that Bush fucked up the economy all you want, but it doesn't
>> mean anything. Barry Soetoro said he was going to fix it and fix it
>> quickly, and he didn't do it. He got everything he asked for to fox
>> it,
>> and he didn't do it.
>>
>> He owns it now.
>
>
> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
> responsible for the economy is the president. Fortunately most of us
> know better. By the way, now that gasoline prices have declined I
> don't hear you praising Obama for it.

He deserves no credit for oil prices dropping due to a worldwide
economic slowdown and reduced oil demand.

You and your folks were blaming
> him when the prices were high, remember? Now that they are down I
> don't hear you thanking him. Why not? It's all his fault what gas
> costs, right?

No, not all, but a significant part of it is. Shutting down drilling
in the gulf certainly didn't help by throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.

His disingenuous argument that we're producing more oil than ever
rings hollow since he didn't have a damn thing to do with that as the
increased oil production here occurred on >private< property, while he
has practically shut down expanded production on Federal land/waters.

Obama taking credit for increased domestic oil production or lower gas
prices is rather like the rooster taking cedit for the sunrise.

>
> Same for the economy, right? He's the only one responsible if it's
> good or bad. Everyone knows it's not that simple except for morons.
> When republicans filibuster everything Obama tries to do to get the
> economy going you can't blame him when things don't get better. In
> fact, most people are blaming the republicans not Obama because they
> know the republicans are purposely stopping Obama from fixing the
> economy.

The republicans don't have to 'stop Obama from fixing the economy'.

Obama is already doing that rather nicely...

--
MFB

[George Plimpton]

On 6/21/2012 9:26 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:20 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 5:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/21/2012 11:01 AM, Homer Stille Cummings wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2012 10:20 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>>>> [lies flushed]
>>
>>>> Barry Soetoro owns the political issues of the economy now. You can
>>>> screech that Bush fucked up the economy all you want, but it doesn't
>>>> mean anything. Barry Soetoro said he was going to fix it and fix it
>>>> quickly, and he didn't do it. He got everything he asked for to fox it,
>>>> and he didn't do it.
>>
>>>> He owns it now.
>>
>>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>>> responsible for the economy is the president.
>>
>> That's not what I said. I said that politically, at this time, Obama
>> owns the economy.
>>
>> Regardless of who is responsible, Obama said he was going to fix what
>> was wrong when he took office. He hasn't done it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Who America thinks owns the economy owns the economy.

The incumbent president owns the economy.

[Jeff M]

On 6/21/2012 8:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
[snip]

>>
>> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
>> spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.
>
> That must be then why Obama extended the Bush taxcuts for two more years,
> removed 2% from the payment for Social Security and Medicare and
> escalated the war in Afghanistan....calling it the "right" war.

Nope. Obama agreed to the two-year tax cut extension in a political
compromise with Republicans who threatened to shut down the government
and cause a default on our debt obligations, two consequences with
disastrous potential for the country as a whole, if these tax cuts that
mainly benefit the wealthy weren't extended, no matter the state of the
budget or of the economy. Obama has repeatedly said he'd rather
eliminate the tax cut. As for the payroll tax cut, it was intended to
stimulate the economy directly by leaving a little more money in the
pockets of mainly working class people, by lowering the the tax withheld
from their wages, and only from wages, each payday. Obama did also
escalate the war in Afghanistan, just like he said he would, but that
war is at least being fought where some terrorists actually are; he was
right about that. Still, he needs to wrap it up and get us (mostly) out
of it like he did the War in Iraq.

[Jeff M]

>>> So the spending in excess of income had nothing to do with it?
>>>
>>> Fascinating!
>>
>> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
>> spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.
>>

> Perhaps you will explain to the class why, with a solid veto proof majority
> in the House and Senate

People who make such assertions really don't understand how Congress
works at all, politically, or pretend not to, anyway.

> and a Democrat President from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011
> those "tax cuts for the rich" have remained in place?

Remember how the Democrats tried to extend them only for the middle and
upper middle classes, those earning up to 250K per year, but roll the
the tax cuts for the extremely wealthy back somewhat? Remember how the
Republicans hysterically fought to preserve the tax cuts for
millionaires and billionaires, going so far as to threaten to shut down
the government and cause a default on our national debt to keep these
people from having to pay one dime more of the taxes they used to pay?

The lesson here is that sometimes, or most often actually, political
compromise is necessary to move the country forward. Obama is, of
course, against extending the tax cuts while Republicans want to make
them permanent, so please don't try to pretend that the Bush tax cuts
for the rich were Obama's idea or that he approves of them. No, Obama's
idea of a tax cut, which he achieved, is the payroll tax rollback that
leaves a little more money in mainly working class people's paychecks
each and every payday, something the Republicans continue to oppose.

> I think it would just as fair to say the "Obama maintianed tax cuts". If I
> was the kind of fool to depend on erroneous slogans to make my point that
> is.

You could say that.

> Just sayin'.
>

[Too_Many_Tools]

> MFB- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What a freaking conservative whiner.

If he doesn't deserve the credit then he doesn't deserve the blame.

TMT

[George Plimpton]

> What a freaking conservative whiner.

What a complete whiff-off by do-nothing toolless slacker who doesn't
understand a fucking thing about how politics or the economy works.

[Räy Fischer]

On 6/22/2012 12:19 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 8:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
>>> spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.
>>
>> That must be then why Obama extended the Bush taxcuts for two more years,
>> removed 2% from the payment for Social Security and Medicare and
>> escalated the war in Afghanistan....calling it the "right" war.
>
> Nope. Obama agreed to the two-year tax cut extension

...because he doesn't really care about deficits.
--
Räy Fîscher | Mendacrisy (n.) government by lying
rfîscher@sönic.net | The new DNC ideal

[Jeff M]

On 6/22/2012 10:28 AM, Räy Fischer wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 12:19 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 8:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote: [snip]
>>>>
>>>> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted
>>>> war spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.
>>>
>>> That must be then why Obama extended the Bush taxcuts for two
>>> more years, removed 2% from the payment for Social Security and
>>> Medicare and escalated the war in Afghanistan....calling it the
>>> "right" war.
>>

>> Nope. Obama agreed to the two-year tax cut extension in a
>> political compromise with Republicans who threatened to shut down
>> the government and cause a default on our debt obligations
>

> ...because he doesn't really care about deficits.

Probably not as much as he cares about improving the economy, but
certainly more than he does about keeping tax cuts for the uber-rich.
Judging by their actions, the Republicans care most about the uber-rich,
very little about the deficit, and not at all about the economy (unless
it's to prolong our economic misery long enough to help them in the next
election).

[Gray Guest]

Räy Fischer <rfîsher@sönic.net> wrote in
news:Q_adnQvLfKiaEnnS...@giganews.com:

> On 6/22/2012 12:19 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 8:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
>>>> spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.
>>>
>>> That must be then why Obama extended the Bush taxcuts for two more
years,
>>> removed 2% from the payment for Social Security and Medicare and
>>> escalated the war in Afghanistan....calling it the "right" war.
>>
>> Nope. Obama agreed to the two-year tax cut extension
>
> ...because he doesn't really care about deficits.

Only insofar that it helps destroy the US economy to teach those bad old
white people a lesson.

[Too_Many_Tools]

> election).- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well said.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 22, 10:51 am, Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> Räy Fischer <rfîsher@sönic.net> wrote innews:Q_adnQvLfKiaEnnS...@giganews.com:

Who America thinks owns the economy owns the economy.

[Too_Many_Tools]

> understand a fucking thing about how politics or the economy works.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...do your parents even admit to knowing you?

If they do, they must be very ashamed of the idiot you have become.

[George Plimpton]

More whiff-off from the toolless slacker.

[Hawke]

I guess I have to explain it for you. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts
against his wishes because he had to compromise with the republican
congress to get the debt ceiling raised. Remember that? The republicans
forced him to extend the tax cuts and thus continuing to add to the debt.

Obama took the payroll tax cut so the middle class could get a tax
break. They just lost 40% of their wealth so they needed the money and
the economy needed the boost as well.

I won't side with Obama on Afghanistan. In my book he should have
started a withdrawal of troops instead of sending 30,000 more. That was
a mistake. But now he is pulling them out. When we get free of those two
wars that drained us it will help a lot and it will save us money that
we have to borrow to spend on wars we have no reason to be in.

Hawke

[Hawke]

How's this? Only stupid and uninformed people think that the president
can fix a badly broken economy all by himself and with an opposition
party doing everything in their power to keep him from succeeding.
People with brains know that we would be a lot farther down the road to
recovery if the republicans weren't purposely sabotaging the economy in
their attempt to make Obama look bad. Instead of helping the country get
back on the right track they are stabbing us all in the back and all
because they want to have power again. Obama doesn't own the economy. No
president does. It's bigger than any one man even the president. The
problem is that instead of working together to fix the economy we have
one party working to keep it from being repaired because they think it
will help them politically. That's just what you expect from people who
think the end justifies the means. Obama's challenge is to fix a broken
economy while the other party tries to stop him from succeeding.

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 6/22/2012 3:39 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 5:20 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 5:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2012 11:01 AM, Homer Stille Cummings wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2012 10:20 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [lies flushed]
>>>>
>>>> Barry Soetoro owns the political issues of the economy now. You can
>>>> screech that Bush fucked up the economy all you want, but it doesn't
>>>> mean anything. Barry Soetoro said he was going to fix it and fix it
>>>> quickly, and he didn't do it. He got everything he asked for to fox
>>>> it,
>>>> and he didn't do it.
>>>>
>>>> He owns it now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>>> responsible for the economy is the president.
>>
>> That's not what I said. I said that politically, at this time, Obama
>> owns the economy.
>>
>> Regardless of who is responsible, Obama said he was going to fix what
>> was wrong when he took office. He hasn't done it.
>
>
> How's this? Only stupid and uninformed people think that the president
> can fix a badly broken economy all by himself and with an opposition
> party doing everything in their power to keep him from succeeding.

It's not the fault of anyone else that Obama said he was going to fix
the economy in short order. He shouldn't have said it, but the fact is
he *did* say it, and *you* and all the other unthinking
shit-4-braincells who voted for him believed it, too.

No, it is a lie to say that the opposition party tried to prevent him
from succeeding. What they tried to do was keep him from wrecking the
economy for generations to come.

[Hawke]

On 6/21/2012 11:21 PM, Flint wrote:

>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>> responsible for the economy is the president. Fortunately most of us
>> know better. By the way, now that gasoline prices have declined I
>> don't hear you praising Obama for it.
>
> He deserves no credit for oil prices dropping due to a worldwide
> economic slowdown and reduced oil demand.

No? But you did hold him responsible when the prices went up. So when
prices go up you blame him but when they go down you give him no credit.
Yeah, we get that. You're simply unfair and won't give him credit when
it is due but will blame him when it's not. Got ya!

> You and your folks were blaming
>> him when the prices were high, remember? Now that they are down I
>> don't hear you thanking him. Why not? It's all his fault what gas
>> costs, right?
>
> No, not all, but a significant part of it is. Shutting down drilling in
> the gulf certainly didn't help by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I guess you must have forgotten why oil drilling was shut down in the
Gulf. Let me remind you. See, there was this giant oil spill courtesy of
BP that went on for months. Obama didn't want to see it happen again
because everyone in the south was complaining because the oil was
destroying their businesses.

> His disingenuous argument that we're producing more oil than ever rings
> hollow since he didn't have a damn thing to do with that as the
> increased oil production here occurred on >private< property, while he
> has practically shut down expanded production on Federal land/waters.

Did Bush have anything to do with causing less oil production when he
was in office? Or did it have nothing to do with either of them? Because
the facts are the facts and oil production is up under Obama. I
understand you refuse to credit him for it even if he deserves it.

> Obama taking credit for increased domestic oil production or lower gas
> prices is rather like the rooster taking cedit for the sunrise.

If you know for a fact that oil production is up and nothing Obama did
has anything to do with it then let's see the proof of that. I don't
think you have any.

>> Same for the economy, right? He's the only one responsible if it's
>> good or bad. Everyone knows it's not that simple except for morons.
>> When republicans filibuster everything Obama tries to do to get the
>> economy going you can't blame him when things don't get better. In
>> fact, most people are blaming the republicans not Obama because they
>> know the republicans are purposely stopping Obama from fixing the
>> economy.
>
> The republicans don't have to 'stop Obama from fixing the economy'.

Yes they do. If they let him do what he wanted the economy would do a
lot better. Whey do you think they are blocking his proposals? Because
they don't think they will work? They know they will. They want him to
fail and they are doing everything to make that happen. Only the blind
can't see that.

> Obama is already doing that rather nicely...
>

He's doing most things rather nicely as he usually does. You're lucky
he's the president. Look what happened when the guy you wanted was in
office. Did you forget how bad he messed the place up so soon?

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 6/22/2012 12:07 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>>>> responsible for the economy is the president.
>>>
>>> That's not what I said. I said that politically, at this time, Obama
>>> owns the economy.
>>>
>>> Regardless of who is responsible, Obama said he was going to fix what
>>> was wrong when he took office. He hasn't done it.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Who America thinks owns the economy owns the economy.
>
> The incumbent president owns the economy.

Says who?

[Hawke]

On 6/22/2012 3:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>> How's this? Only stupid and uninformed people think that the president
>> can fix a badly broken economy all by himself and with an opposition
>> party doing everything in their power to keep him from succeeding.
>
> It's not the fault of anyone else that Obama said he was going to fix
> the economy in short order.

I don't think he ever said that he'd fix the economy in short order. I
think you made that one up.

He shouldn't have said it, but the fact is
> he *did* say it, and *you* and all the other unthinking
> shit-4-braincells who voted for him believed it, too.

I'm sure you have a cite for that, right? Sorry but you underestimate my
knowledge about the economy like you always do. I would never believe
anybody that said they would turn a horrible economy around in nothing
flat. I've been around too long to believe bullshit like that.

> No, it is a lie to say that the opposition party tried to prevent him
> from succeeding.

It's an indisputable fact. The republicans in the senate have set a
record for the number of filibusters and the house won't pass any bills
Obama wants passed. But you don't think the republicans are trying to
keep Obama from succeeding? Are you that really that dumb?

What they tried to do was keep him from wrecking the
> economy for generations to come.

Right, like putting in health insurance for all, investing in education,
and infrastructure, and making the country more modern and competitive.
Yeah, those things are sure to wreck an economy. Man oh man!, I sure
hope you don't call yourself an economist.

Hawke

[George Plimpton]

On 6/22/2012 4:53 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 11:21 PM, Flint wrote:
>
>>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>>> responsible for the economy is the president. Fortunately most of us
>>> know better. By the way, now that gasoline prices have declined I
>>> don't hear you praising Obama for it.
>>
>> He deserves no credit for oil prices dropping due to a worldwide
>> economic slowdown and reduced oil demand.
>
> No? But you did hold him responsible when the prices went up.

You blamed Bush for that, but he didn't cause that, either.

>
>> You and your folks were blaming
>>> him when the prices were high, remember? Now that they are down I
>>> don't hear you thanking him. Why not? It's all his fault what gas
>>> costs, right?
>>
>> No, not all, but a significant part of it is. Shutting down drilling in
>> the gulf certainly didn't help by throwing the baby out with the
>> bathwater.
>
> I guess you must have forgotten why oil drilling was shut down in the
> Gulf.

He did it because he wants Americans to pay more for oil.

>> His disingenuous argument that we're producing more oil than ever rings
>> hollow since he didn't have a damn thing to do with that as the
>> increased oil production here occurred on >private< property, while he
>> has practically shut down expanded production on Federal land/waters.
>
> Did Bush have anything to do with causing less oil production when he
> was in office?

No - that was the Democrats.

>
>> Obama taking credit for increased domestic oil production or lower gas
>> prices is rather like the rooster taking cedit for the sunrise.
>
> If you know for a fact that oil production is up and nothing Obama did
> has anything to do with it then let's see the proof of that.

Oil production was up before Barry Soetoro took office.

>
>>> Same for the economy, right? He's the only one responsible if it's
>>> good or bad. Everyone knows it's not that simple except for morons.
>>> When republicans filibuster everything Obama tries to do to get the
>>> economy going you can't blame him when things don't get better. In
>>> fact, most people are blaming the republicans not Obama because they
>>> know the republicans are purposely stopping Obama from fixing the
>>> economy.
>>
>> The republicans don't have to 'stop Obama from fixing the economy'.
>
> Yes they do. If they let him do what he wanted

Barry Soetoro got all of his stimulus and then some. The economy is
still fucked. He lied, but you bought it.

>
>
>> Obama is already doing that rather nicely...
>>
>
> He's doing most things rather nicely as he usually does.

He's fucking up the country, as Democrats always do.

[George Plimpton]

The voters.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/22/2012 5:09 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 3:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>> How's this? Only stupid and uninformed people think that the president
>>> can fix a badly broken economy all by himself and with an opposition
>>> party doing everything in their power to keep him from succeeding.
>>
>> It's not the fault of anyone else that Obama said he was going to fix
>> the economy in short order.
>
> I don't think he ever said that he'd fix the economy in short order.

Yes, he did. He said unemployment would not reach even 8%. It got two
points higher, and it's *still* higher.

> He shouldn't have said it, but the fact is
>> he *did* say it, and *you* and all the other unthinking
>> shit-4-braincells who voted for him believed it, too.
>
> I'm sure you have a cite for that, right? Sorry but you underestimate my
> knowledge about the economy

You know nothing about the economy - zero.

>
>> No, it is a lie to say that the opposition party tried to prevent him
>> from succeeding.
>
> It's an indisputable fact.

It's a lie, of course.

>> What they tried to do was keep him from wrecking the
>> economy for generations to come.
>
> Right

Right.

[Oglethorpe]

"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

news:js30hv$avj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 6/21/2012 11:21 PM, Flint wrote:
>
>>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>>> responsible for the economy is the president. Fortunately most of us
>>> know better. By the way, now that gasoline prices have declined I
>>> don't hear you praising Obama for it.
>>
>> He deserves no credit for oil prices dropping due to a worldwide
>> economic slowdown and reduced oil demand.
>
> No? But you did hold him responsible when the prices went up. So when
> prices go up you blame him but when they go down you give him no credit.
> Yeah, we get that. You're simply unfair and won't give him credit when it
> is due but will blame him when it's not. Got ya!
>
>
>
>
>> You and your folks were blaming
>>> him when the prices were high, remember? Now that they are down I
>>> don't hear you thanking him. Why not? It's all his fault what gas
>>> costs, right?
>>
>> No, not all, but a significant part of it is. Shutting down drilling in
>> the gulf certainly didn't help by throwing the baby out with the
>> bathwater.
>
> I guess you must have forgotten why oil drilling was shut down in the
> Gulf. Let me remind you. See, there was this giant oil spill courtesy of
> BP that went on for months. Obama didn't want to see it happen again
> because everyone in the south was complaining because the oil was
> destroying their businesses.
>

Yet Obama fast tracked the Deep Horizon rig and his EPA did their rig
ins'pections from their hotel rooms. Obama's lack of oversight cause the oil
s'pill.

>
>> His disingenuous argument that we're producing more oil than ever rings
>> hollow since he didn't have a damn thing to do with that as the
>> increased oil production here occurred on >private< property, while he
>> has practically shut down expanded production on Federal land/waters.
>
> Did Bush have anything to do with causing less oil production when he was
> in office? Or did it have nothing to do with either of them? Because the
> facts are the facts and oil production is up under Obama. I understand you
> refuse to credit him for it even if he deserves it.
>
>
>> Obama taking credit for increased domestic oil production or lower gas
>> prices is rather like the rooster taking cedit for the sunrise.
>
> If you know for a fact that oil production is up and nothing Obama did has
> anything to do with it then let's see the proof of that. I don't think you
> have any.
>

Oil production is up on private lands. Obama has nothing to do with that.

>
>
>>> Same for the economy, right? He's the only one responsible if it's
>>> good or bad. Everyone knows it's not that simple except for morons.
>>> When republicans filibuster everything Obama tries to do to get the
>>> economy going you can't blame him when things don't get better. In
>>> fact, most people are blaming the republicans not Obama because they
>>> know the republicans are purposely stopping Obama from fixing the
>>> economy.
>>
>> The republicans don't have to 'stop Obama from fixing the economy'.
>
> Yes they do. If they let him do what he wanted the economy would

go deeer into the crapper. 1.5 million more unemployed than in January,
2009, 3.5 years of over 8% unemployment, wrst workforce participation in
over 40 years.

>
>
>
>> Obama is already doing that rather nicely...
>>
>
> He's doing most things rather nicely as he usually does. You're lucky he's
> the president. Look what happened when the guy you wanted was in office.
> Did you forget how bad he messed the place up so soon?
>

Obama's 40 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag.

> Hawke

[Oglethorpe]

"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

news:js30ke$avj$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

Obama when he blamed Bush in 2008.

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 22, 10:16 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

> Obama when he blamed Bush in 2008.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...America blamed Bush in 2008.

America still blames Bush.

Romney is toast.

Deal with it.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jun 22, 10:16 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:

> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

> > Hawke- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...40 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag?

That describes Bush perfectly...of course you would need 400 pounds of
crap to make Cheney.

As for Obama...YOUR President...have you got your reservations for his
reelection party?

TMT

[Gray Guest]

"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:js0sn4$o3q$1...@dont-email.me:

> "Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
> news:7rmdnS-MmMcEOH7S...@giganews.com...
>
>
>>
>> Maybe so. But that's NOT true about President Barack Obama.
>
> That's Barry.
>
>==================================
>
> Whatever you choose to call him, he is superior to you in every
> conceivable way.
>
> Your disrespect just affirms that.
>
>

He isn't superior to me or anyone I know. He's a cheap poser and his day
will come.

[RogerN]

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
news:e0a3360c-14c5-40c5...@t8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>On Jun 21, 7:20 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
><snip>

>> Regardless of who is responsible, Obama said he was going to fix what

>> was wrong when he took office. He hasn't done it.- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

>Who America thinks owns the economy owns the economy.
>

>The American public thinks that Bush aka the Republicans still own it.
>
>Bad news for your conservative boy...his Magic Underwear won't save
>him.
>
>And you can stomp your little feet all you want...it won't change
>America's opinion of the Republicans.
>
>TMT

You are not America and your opinion is not America's opinion as evidenced
the last election. American voters replaced dead Ted Ed Kennedy with a
Republican and on the last election the Republicans won many seats contrary
to your opinion and thanks to Obama.

You are so blind you can't see the truth that is right in your face, as
Americans became more and more infected with the mental illness called
modern liberalism, it has went downhill at the same rate. For example, as
crime and murders increase, your kind think the answer is controlling guns,
guns are just a tool that can be used for good or evil. So those with the
mental illness want gun control but the problem is the people are out of
control, not the guns. A liberally mentally ill society will kill and
commit crimes with whatever tool is available, guns, knives, clubs, or
sticks and stones. What we need is to get rid of the stinkin thinkin that
comes from libtards.

Libtards have replaced freedom with immorality on a grand scale. After the
attacks on 9/11 people shouldn't have asked "Why did God allow this?", they
should have asked "Why was the attacks so much less than what we deserved?".

When God abandons a nation:
http://www.gty.org/radio/

The accomplishment of Libtards, The Bible libtards don't believe is being
fulfilled in this time in history.

RogerN

[Too_Many_Tools]

> The voters.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

America decides who owns the economy...and according to the polls
(which you are deliberately ignoring) America STILL thinks that BUSH
OWNS THE ECONOMY.

Too bad for your boy with the Magic Underwear.

America loves a winner and that winner is Obama.

Tough shit for you.

Laugh..laugh..laugh...

[George Plimpton]

On 6/22/2012 6:27 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:16 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:js30ke$avj$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/22/2012 12:07 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>>>>>>> responsible for the economy is the president.
>>
>>>>>> That's not what I said. I said that politically, at this time, Obama
>>>>>> owns the economy.
>>
>>>>>> Regardless of who is responsible, Obama said he was going to fix what
>>>>>> was wrong when he took office. He hasn't done it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> Who America thinks owns the economy owns the economy.
>>
>>>> The incumbent president owns the economy.
>>
>>> Says who?
>>
>> Obama when he blamed Bush in 2008.
>

> LOL...America blamed Bush in 2008.

Obama blamed Bush.

Now Obama owns the economy.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/22/2012 6:40 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:12 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 6/22/2012 4:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6/22/2012 12:07 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>>>>>>> responsible for the economy is the president.
>>
>>>>>> That's not what I said. I said that politically, at this time, Obama
>>>>>> owns the economy.
>>
>>>>>> Regardless of who is responsible, Obama said he was going to fix what
>>>>>> was wrong when he took office. He hasn't done it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> Who America thinks owns the economy owns the economy.
>>
>>>> The incumbent president owns the economy.
>>
>>> Says who?
>>
>> The voters.
>

> America decides who owns the economy

No, "America" doesn't decide anything. People - individual people -
decide things. People have concluded and *will* conclude that Obama
didn't deliver.

[Too_Many_Tools]

> More whiff-off from the toolless slacker.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Done stomping your little feet?

Does it help you find your BP?

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

> RogerN- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Blah...balh...blah...

Roger the zealot rants.

America hates Republicans.

And apparently God does too.

Why would She want Obama as President?

Because She is God...that is why.

Hey Roger...when your job is outshored remember it is a Republican
doing it.

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

> didn't deliver.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Liar...America decided that it wanted OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT.

And crap on the Republicans...the parasite of the Country.

TMT

[George Plimpton]

>>> LOL...do your parents even
>>
>> More whiff-off from the toolless slacker.
>

> Done stomping your

More whiff-off from the toolless slacker.

You don't know a fucking thing about how politics or the economy works.
That's a given.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/22/2012 8:42 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:51 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 6/22/2012 6:40 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 22, 7:12 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2012 4:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 6/22/2012 12:07 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry but only stupid and uninformed people think the only person
>>>>>>>>> responsible for the economy is the president.
>>
>>>>>>>> That's not what I said. I said that politically, at this time, Obama
>>>>>>>> owns the economy.
>>
>>>>>>>> Regardless of who is responsible, Obama said he was going to fix what
>>>>>>>> was wrong when he took office. He hasn't done it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>> Who America thinks owns the economy owns the economy.
>>
>>>>>> The incumbent president owns the economy.
>>
>>>>> Says who?
>>
>>>> The voters.
>>
>>> America decides who owns the economy
>>
>> No, "America" doesn't decide anything. People - individual people -
>> decide things. People have concluded and *will* conclude that Obama
>> didn't deliver.
>

> Liar...

Nope. And that's not a rebuttal.



> America decided that

No. "America" doesn't decide anything. Countries don't make decisions
- they are not decision-making entities. People make decisions. This
delusion of yours is a big part of how you out yourself as a stupid
fucking collectivist.

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in
news:r6mdnd8gzfrOgXnS...@giganews.com:

> On 6/21/2012 8:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> [snip]

>>>
>>> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
>>> spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.
>>
>> That must be then why Obama extended the Bush taxcuts for two more
>> years, removed 2% from the payment for Social Security and Medicare
>> and escalated the war in Afghanistan....calling it the "right" war.
>

> Nope. Obama agreed to the two-year tax cut extension in a political
> compromise with Republicans who threatened to shut down the government
> and cause a default on our debt obligations,

The point is that he did it and removed 2% from the employee side of
their FICA.

two consequences with
> disastrous potential for the country as a whole, if these tax cuts
> that mainly benefit the wealthy weren't extended, no matter the state
> of the budget or of the economy.

The actual amount of extra taxes that would be produced if the tax cut
for the wealthy were removed would be a rounding error on our current
deficit.


Obama has repeatedly said he'd
> rather eliminate the tax cut. As for the payroll tax cut, it was
> intended to stimulate the economy directly by leaving a little more
> money in the pockets of mainly working class people, by lowering the
> the tax withheld from their wages,

Damn, one of the reasons for the Bush taxcut. Or did you think that Bush
did simply for shits and giggles?

and only from wages, each payday.
> Obama did also escalate the war in Afghanistan, just like he said he
> would, but that war is at least being fought where some terrorists
> actually are; he was right about that.

Yep, as was Bush when he went there. He just didn't jump into it as
heavily since he was rather tied up with the War in Iraq which was waged
on incorrect pretences. I personally think it was to show his father he
could get Saddam Hussein.

Still, he needs to wrap it up
> and get us (mostly) out of it like he did the War in Iraq.

Both administrations got us out of Iraq. It was on the Bush
Administration timeline after the surge (which Obama was against, BTW)
and under that timetable, Obama happened to be president. Yes, Obama
gets credit for getting us out of Iraq, but it wasn't all due to
Obama.....or Bush.


--

Some folks must learn to look at their problems as their dogs do....
If you can't hump them or eat them, ... piss on them ... walk away!!

Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in

news:2aadnd2MHekYvHnS...@giganews.com:

> On 6/21/2012 10:28 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in

>> news:a72dnbju1tA9GH_SnZ2dnUVZ_u- dn...@giganews.com:

>>
>>> On 6/20/2012 7:34 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
>>>> news:jrtp9h$vrp$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/19/2012 3:01 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:

>>>>>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

>>>> So the spending in excess of income had nothing to do with it?
>>>>
>>>> Fascinating!
>>>

>>> The fact that without the Bush era tax cuts and the unbudgeted war
>>> spending, there wouldn't be much of or any deficit today.
>>>
>

>> Perhaps you will explain to the class why, with a solid veto proof
>> majority in the House and Senate
>
> People who make such assertions really don't understand how Congress
> works at all, politically, or pretend not to, anyway.
>
>> and a Democrat President from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011
>> those "tax cuts for the rich" have remained in place?
>
> Remember how the Democrats tried to extend them only for the middle
> and upper middle classes, those earning up to 250K per year, but roll
> the the tax cuts for the extremely wealthy back somewhat? Remember
> how the Republicans hysterically fought to preserve the tax cuts for
> millionaires and billionaires, going so far as to threaten to shut
> down the government and cause a default on our national debt to keep
> these people from having to pay one dime more of the taxes they used
> to pay?
>
> The lesson here is that sometimes, or most often actually, political
> compromise is necessary to move the country forward. Obama is, of
> course, against extending the tax cuts while Republicans want to make
> them permanent, so please don't try to pretend that the Bush tax cuts
> for the rich were Obama's idea or that he approves of them. No,
> Obama's idea of a tax cut, which he achieved, is the payroll tax
> rollback that leaves a little more money in mainly working class
> people's paychecks each and every payday, something the Republicans
> continue to oppose.

With Social Security and Medicare being supplemented on monies borrowed
at 40 cents on the dollar, that 2% would have certainly helped keep those
programs remain solvent. Social Security is already bringing in less
money than what is required to be paid out. That remainder needs to come
from the general fund (which is where the overage of payments went in
earlier years).

[Hawke]

On 6/22/2012 6:36 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:js0sn4$o3q$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> "Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
>> news:7rmdnS-MmMcEOH7S...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe so. But that's NOT true about President Barack Obama.
>>
>> That's Barry.
>>
>> ==================================
>>
>> Whatever you choose to call him, he is superior to you in every
>> conceivable way.
>>
>> Your disrespect just affirms that.
>>
>>
>
> He isn't superior to me or anyone I know. He's a cheap poser and his day
> will come.

Really? What are you better at than he is? I'd love to hear it.

Hawke

[Hawke]

The same people WILL conclude that they don't want Mitt Romney, one
percenter, to be their president.


Hawke

[Hawke]

On 6/22/2012 5:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 5:09 PM, Hawke wrote:
>> On 6/22/2012 3:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> How's this? Only stupid and uninformed people think that the president
>>>> can fix a badly broken economy all by himself and with an opposition
>>>> party doing everything in their power to keep him from succeeding.
>>>
>>> It's not the fault of anyone else that Obama said he was going to fix
>>> the economy in short order.
>>
>> I don't think he ever said that he'd fix the economy in short order.
>
> Yes, he did. He said unemployment would not reach even 8%. It got two
> points higher, and it's *still* higher.

That's a lie. A few of his financial advisers said they thought things
wouldn't be as bad as they actually got. Obama never said the problems
could be fixed in short order. He said the opposite; that it was going
to be a long hard job.

>> He shouldn't have said it, but the fact is
>>> he *did* say it, and *you* and all the other unthinking
>>> shit-4-braincells who voted for him believed it, too.

Right wing media said he said that and you bought it hook, line, and
sinker. Quit watching so much Foxnews.

>> I'm sure you have a cite for that, right? Sorry but you underestimate my
>> knowledge about the economy
>
> You know nothing about the economy - zero.

More than you apparently and where's that citation?

>>> No, it is a lie to say that the opposition party tried to prevent him
>>> from succeeding.
>>
>> It's an indisputable fact.
>
> It's a lie, of course.

No, it's the truth. If you are so stupid you can't figure out what
filibusters are intended to do it isn't my fault. Even when I tell you
they are for blocking the other side from passing legislation you still
don't get it. republicans are blocking legislation that would reduce
unemployment and would boost the economy. They're doing this to
purposely keep the economy from doing well. You can't figure that out.
That ain't my problem.

>>> What they tried to do was keep him from wrecking the
>>> economy for generations to come.
>>
>> Right
>
> Right.

Wrecking the economy for generations? You mean like Bush did?

Hawke

[Homer Stille Cummings]

On 6/21/2012 9:35 PM, Dano wrote:
> "Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
> news:7rmdnS-MmMcEOH7S...@giganews.com...
>
>
>>
>> Maybe so. But that's NOT true about President Barack Obama.
>
> That's Barry.
>
> ==================================
>
> Whatever you choose to call him, he is superior to you in every
> conceivable way.

No.

[George Plimpton]

On 6/23/2012 2:03 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 5:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/22/2012 5:09 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2012 3:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How's this? Only stupid and uninformed people think that the president
>>>>> can fix a badly broken economy all by himself and with an opposition
>>>>> party doing everything in their power to keep him from succeeding.
>>>>
>>>> It's not the fault of anyone else that Obama said he was going to fix
>>>> the economy in short order.
>>>
>>> I don't think he ever said that he'd fix the economy in short order.
>>
>> Yes, he did. He said unemployment would not reach even 8%. It got two
>> points higher, and it's *still* higher.
>
> That's a lie.

It's not a lie. Obama promised that if his "stimulus" bill passed,
unemployment would not go above 8%. In fact, he got about $90 billion
*MORE* than he asked for in his stimulus bill, yet unemployment got
above 10%.

>
>>> He shouldn't have said it, but the fact is
>>>> he *did* say it, and *you* and all the other unthinking
>>>> shit-4-braincells who voted for him believed it, too.
>
> Right wing media said he said that

He said it.

>>> I'm sure you have a cite for that, right? Sorry but you underestimate my
>>> knowledge about the economy
>>
>> You know nothing about the economy - zero.
>
> More than you apparently and

You know nothing about the economy - zero.

>>>> No, it is a lie to say that the opposition party tried to prevent him
>>>> from succeeding.
>>>
>>> It's an indisputable fact.
>>
>> It's a lie, of course.
>
> No, it's the truth.

It's a lie, of course.


>

>>>> What they tried to do was keep him from wrecking the
>>>> economy for generations to come.
>>>
>>> Right
>>
>> Right.
>
>
> Wrecking the economy for generations?

Yes, which is what the crushing debt burden will do. You know - the
debt that Obama has doubled.

[Hawke]

On 6/22/2012 5:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>>> The republicans don't have to 'stop Obama from fixing the economy'.
>>
>> Yes they do. If they let him do what he wanted
>
> Barry Soetoro got all of his stimulus and then some. The economy is
> still fucked. He lied, but you bought it.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Obama is already doing that rather nicely...
>>>
>>
>> He's doing most things rather nicely as he usually does.
>
> He's fucking up the country, as Democrats always do.

What you have managed to do is convince me that you are just one of the
right wing boys and just as ignorant and partisan as any of them. You
have shown a remarkable ability to shift the blame for our financial
crisis and our slow economy from the republicans to the Democrats. But
I've also seen how a supposed libertarian blames the Democrats for every
ill the country has experienced, and holds the republicans harmless for
anything. That in and of itself shot any credibility you might have had
to hell. You have fallen all the way to "stupid right wing dufus class",
like Steve B and Tom Gardener. Don't even bother trying to make another
point. You don't have a lick of knowledge about anything.

Hawke