Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?

[BostonPirate]

I was responding to Ready Wits complaint about Bush's "disastrous""economic policies", and asked him to point our any. Please limit your discussion to economic policies and any disastrous results, showing a cause and effect. That is, please point out any disasters you think were the result of an "economic" policy of Bush.

NO

But thanks for the advice. Obama haters have little to do with Bush. If they had any shame or cognitive abilities, they would see what they are and how unseemly their behavior appears to the rest of the nation.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama would be losing to Gov Christie if the GOP hadn't spent four years destroying its brand with nothing but unbridled hatred, at the nations expense.

Obama will win. If you are a supporter of Romney and you are an Obama hater who supported the GOP obstruction of congress, you will have to personally wear that for four more years.

Repercussions, Gentlemen, are not just for the moochers who are our armed forces, by Mitt's definition. repercussions are for the people that made Mitt Romney's candidacy possible.

He is the worst candidate for the office of the presidency I have ever witnessed in my life, and he will never sit in the oval office, because americans simply hate the GOP in Congress, and have NO trust for them.

 

[Benvolio]

Again, I have not heard Republicans use the word hatred against Obama. We dislike his anti business/ pro socialist policies. He does not have America's or Americans best interests at heart. That is proven by his pro immigration policies in a time of massive unemployment. Romney has been very successful at many things, and will make a great President. And, yes he will be elected.

 

[rareboy]

I was responding to Ready Wits complaint about Bush's "disastrous""economic policies", and asked him to point our any. Please limit your discussion to economic policies and any disastrous results, showing a cause and effect. That is, please point out any disasters you think were the result of an "economic" policy of Bush.

The Iraq war of adventure. That has bankrupted the country.

He was stopped short from dismantling social security...remember that. When he thought that each person should just be able to invest their money in the market. The one that crashed in 2008? that was near thing.

The Bush Tax Cuts? You forget those?

 

[Benvolio]

What disaster has resulted from the three things you have listed? Iraq was not an economic policy. It raised the debt, as did the tax cuts, but was that a disaster? If that debt was a disaster thenObama's deficit spendibg is also a disaster.
But the debt is only a future disaster with little adverse effect at this time. The Social Secuity thingy did not happen.
You still have not given us a disasterous Bush ecinomic policy.

 

[BostonPirate]

Again, I have not heard Republicans use the word hatred against Obama. We dislike his anti business/ pro socialist policies. He does not have America's or Americans best interests at heart. That is proven by his pro immigration policies in a time of massive unemployment. Romney has been very successful at many things, and will make a great President. And, yes he will be elected.

give it up, dude.

That kite won't fly. If you can't see your congitive dissonance on all matters Obama and don't see how unnatractive it is, then you deserve to just be who you are in all your glorious ... charm.

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

What Bush policies do you think were a disaster? Be specific and show a causal connection. In fact, of course, his policies where very successful and we had 5 years of prosperity until the Democrats took Congress in Nov 06.
The meltdown occurred because the Democrats forced banks to make doubtful loans to poor and minorities. Banks complied making variable rate mortgages. Then the Fed raised interest rates, many people defaulted, and the FDIC panicked and the downward spiral began.
You cannot point to any Bush policies which caused the problem or which were disasters.

Ben- you cannot expect me to have a serious conversation with you if you continue to insist that the Earth is flat... noone, even Republicans, claim that the Bush economic policies were a success. You are ahead of even Romney (and everyone at the RNC) on this pivot...

I will echo another's advice:
1.) Go to this brand new site: www.google.com
2.) Type in "Bush Economic Legacy"
3.) Read articles (this one's important)
4.) For shits and giggles, if you have time, also Google Image search "completely wrong" while you're there

Here are a couple to get you started:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/15/the-bush-economic-legacy-the-u-s-s-decade-of-descent/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/

A better argument would be, of course, that Bush inherited the dot-com bubble and that there are economic policy "lags" (which is true btw)... this, however, would unfortunately weaken your argument since then Bush would be justly held accountable for the start of the Obama presidency...

A couple of side notes though:
-Of course, starting a pointless, unpaid for war costing uber-conservatively ONE TRILLION dollars is relevant to economic policy...
-Can you explain your distinction between the "poor" and "minorities" above? Since you already covered the "poor", what exactly about minorities, other than being poor, makes them a larger loan risk that you needed to call them out?

At this point, I have supplied plenty and have received nothing in return in terms of my questions... and I am sorting looking for a give and take kind of relationship here...

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Ben- you cannot expect me to have a serious conversation with you if you continue to insist that the Earth is flat... noone, even Republicans, claim that the Bush economic policies were a success. You are ahead of even Romney (and everyone at the RNC) on this pivot...

YOUR problem is you just don't get the mantra.

Republicans = good (ALWAYS AND WITHOUT QUESTION)
Democrats = bad (ALWAYS AND WITHOUT QUESTION)

Hope this saves you some time and aggravation!

 

[Benvolio]

What disaster? How did Bush's economic policies cause it? If there is any substance to the claim, you should be able to answer the questions, or leave it to Ready Wit who made the claim.

Don't tell me to google it. i already know the correct answer: Bush's economic policies did not cause a disaster.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

What disaster? How did Bush's economic policies cause it? If there is any substance to the claim, you should be able to answer the questions, or leave it to Ready Wit who made the claim.

Don't tell me to google it. i already know the correct answer: Bush's economic policies did not cause a disaster.

Of course you're right, Benny. Starting a multi-billion dollar war on based on faulty intelligence and false pretenses was in no way a disaster.

Disaster is too generous. It was an unmitigated fuck up of epic proportions. It lasted 10 years, cost billions of dollars, cost thousands of lives, hurt our goodwill with other nations, failed to get Bin Laden, and ended up lining the coffers of Dick Cheney and his pals via lucrative government contracts with Cheney's Blackwater corporation.

The rotten cherry on the shit sundae is that Bush kept most of the war cost "off the books", so he could end his Presidency smelling like a rose and leave the next guy to deal with the bill. That's the usual GOP way of doing things: "I got mine - everybody else can go suck a big dick!"

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Late edit on my previous statement...replace "Blackwater" with "Haliburton".

I always get my shameless war profiteers mixed up. It's embarrassing, really.

 

[Rolyo85]

Wait, he's saying that Bush's policies did NOT cause economic meltdown? There are actual non-institutionalized Americans who claim that?

And to think I was surprised when people said the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy...

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

What disaster? How did Bush's economic policies cause it? If there is any substance to the claim, you should be able to answer the questions, or leave it to Ready Wit who made the claim.

Don't tell me to google it. i already know the correct answer: Bush's economic policies did not cause a disaster.

Ben... I've given you sources... one even lays out issue by issue... unnecessary/muddled tax cuts, poor job growth, deficit explosion, no energy policy... not to mention a useless TRILLION dollar war and a president that oversaw the 8 years preceding the worst recession since the Great Depression... even 50% of Republicans STILL blame Bush for the economic climate TODAY... that should tell you something...

But it doesn't... because you're proud of your know-nothing mentality... you've even just admitted you refuse to accept knowledge... so what's the point? The Earth is flat because Ben says so...

It's a lost cause... perhaps Mitt Romney was on to something... maybe you just can't help some people... unfortunately, it appears they are ironically voting for him...

Thanks for nothing. You have contributed absolutely nothing worthwhile to this entire thread. You've completely ignored my questions and instead offered nothing but inane, distracting, unscholarly questions of your own...

I offer the following clip as a summary of the plethora of responses to my questions regarding Mitt Romney's big ideas:

It gets particulary enlightening around 27:16...

 

[Kulindahr]

^ We'll all be waiting a long, long time.

[STRIKE]One hundred[/STRIKE] Ten thousand bottles of beer on the wall, [STRIKE]one hundred[/STRIKE] ten thousand bottles of beer..........

Altered for reality.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, I have not heard Republicans use the word hatred against Obama. We dislike his anti business/ pro socialist policies. He does not have America's or Americans best interests at heart. That is proven by his pro immigration policies in a time of massive unemployment. Romney has been very successful at many things, and will make a great President. And, yes he will be elected.

Not using the word hate doesn't mean you don't hate.

He has introduced pro-business legislation that would have created a million jobs in one instance and nearly that in another -- and both time it was the anti-American Republicans who killed those, thereby proving they are anti-American by denying two million Americans the jobs Obama's policy would have generated.

On immigration, Obama has almost no policy except to allow people who are actually Americans and people who would generate jobs for Americans to stay here. Again, the HGOP shows itself anti-American by opposing those efforts... again, denying Americans jobs.

Romney has been successful at being a huckster gathering funds from every source possible, especially sucking it out of the taxpayers to profit himself and his friends -- as he did with the Olympics and Bain -- and happily taking it from Latin American terrorists and then enriching them.

If he is elected, the projections show that if what little he has said of policy is implemented, over one million jobs will vanish in the first year and over three in the next year, for roughly four and a half million jobs gone in just two years. If he continues according to the ideology spouted by his running mate, they'll be the best friends Marxists have ever had in the White House, because that 47% will become 67% and among them will be radicals ready to stir up revolution.

 

[Kulindahr]

What disaster has resulted from the three things you have listed? Iraq was not an economic policy. It raised the debt, as did the tax cuts, but was that a disaster? If that debt was a disaster thenObama's deficit spendibg is also a disaster.
But the debt is only a future disaster with little adverse effect at this time. The Social Secuity thingy did not happen.
You still have not given us a disasterous Bush ecinomic policy.

Rubbish. Anything that costs money is economic policy.

You've been given several disastrous policies. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[Kulindahr]

A better argument would be, of course, that Bush inherited the dot-com bubble and that there are economic policy "lags" (which is true btw)... this, however, would unfortunately weaken your argument since then Bush would be justly held accountable for the start of the Obama presidency...

A couple of side notes though:
-Of course, starting a pointless, unpaid for war costing uber-conservatively ONE TRILLION dollars is relevant to economic policy...
-Can you explain your distinction between the "poor" and "minorities" above? Since you already covered the "poor", what exactly about minorities, other than being poor, makes them a larger loan risk that you needed to call them out?

At this point, I have supplied plenty and have received nothing in return in terms of my questions... and I am sorting looking for a give and take kind of relationship here...

If Benny read the offerings you provided, he'll recognize this:

President George W. Bush presided over the creation of fewer jobs in the U.S. economy in the modern era than any president since President Herbert Hoover

So with his supposed job-stimulating tax cuts for the "job creators", Bush managed to drag down the prosperity built under Clinton and set the nation up for economic disaster.

We'd have been far better off if he'd spent that trillion blown on invading a sovereign country that had done us no harm and rebuilt all the bridges in the highway system and widened side roads suffering from safety concerns due to being built to 1940s or -50s standards. THAT would have boosted the economy... and possibly even brought us back to a surplus within a few years.

The experience of Japan and others show that it doesn't matter who's in charge, a recession like this takes about ten years to get out of -- but the experience in Europe is showing that the policies Romney and Ryan are proposing will prolong it and make it worse.

Benvolio, I used to stand where you do. But the facts don't support it, and as someone who believes in liberty, I have to go with what works for the majority, not what benefits the wealthy minority.

 

[Jack Springer]

Bush started his Presidency with this country in a recession and ended it one. No wonder why that asshole can't show his face in public or at a convention. His policies are what sent this country off the financial cliff. And Obama was left with the mess.

Calling a President an "asshole" nice ........

 

[Jack Springer]

If Benny read the offerings you provided, he'll recognize this:



So with his supposed job-stimulating tax cuts for the "job creators", Bush managed to drag down the prosperity built under Clinton and set the nation up for economic disaster.

We'd have been far better off if he'd spent that trillion blown on invading a sovereign country that had done us no harm and rebuilt all the bridges in the highway system and widened side roads suffering from safety concerns due to being built to 1940s or -50s standards. THAT would have boosted the economy... and possibly even brought us back to a surplus within a few years.

The experience of Japan and others show that it doesn't matter who's in charge, a recession like this takes about ten years to get out of -- but the experience in Europe is showing that the policies Romney and Ryan are proposing will prolong it and make it worse.

Benvolio, I used to stand where you do. But the facts don't support it, and as someone who believes in liberty, I have to go with what works for the majority, not what benefits the wealthy minority.

I guess your selective memory doesn't remember that Bush inherited a recession when he took office in 2001, then 9/11 happened that crushed the economy in ways that it will never recover to what it was before.

I guess selective memory goes with being a liberal.

 

[JayHawk]

Mitt Romney wants to double down on Bush fiscal policy which resulted in the fewest job creations in the modern economy. That alone should open the eyes of these few deluded homos who would vote for the man. Instead they shed a tear because Bush was called an asshole.


And to refer to Kuli as a liberal is hysterical. Evidently reading comprehension is not a strong suit amongst Romney-ites.

 

[Kulindahr]

Calling a President an "asshole" nice ........

When he was, you call him one.

I think it's a bit excessive; personally, I'd call him a puppet.

Or maybe a drone... so you could say Cheney was the power behind the drone.