FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

[Japher]

IMO, Bush traded the economy for national security. And if you actually bother to perform the comparisons you will see that the economy hasn't suffered much at all.

Accodingly, the president doesn't have much control over the economy. So neither blame nor praise should be give to them for the way the economy behaves when such large factors as bubbles, wars, and terrorist attacks are factored into it.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap


THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE OVERALL ECONOMY- THIS IS ABOUT A RISE IN POVERTY. ADD TO THAT THAT ACCORDING TO THE AMDINISTRATION THE RECESSION ENDED IN 2001 AND SINCE 2002 THE ECONOMY "HAS TURNED A CORNER" THANKS TO HIS TAX CUTS.

SO THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT BUSH'S HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY!!!!

Is that clear now!?

No. You needed to use a few more capital letters.

[chequita guevara]

Poorly designed tax cuts, unnecessary war, idiot Fed. chariman.

Deficits are not a bad idea in the short term to stimulate an economy, provided that the money is spent on growing the economy. It wasn't

The war pulled a lot of people who had jobs out of their homes, shrinking their earning and spending power, as well as making it harder for businesses to operate at full capacity.

Greenspan raised interest rates when job increases weren't very strong yet. Yes, unemployment has dropped, because lots of people are running out of benefits and moving back in with mom and dad. But oh no, we wouldn't want the economy to overheat?

Eighty-four of the last ninety-four economic contractions have happened during Repug administrations. It's a wonder anyone thinks Repugs are better for the economy.

[Japher]

Poorly designed tax cuts

I agree, and you can blame Bush for all I care.

unnecessary war

Ignited by both Dems and Repugs alike.

idiot Fed. chariman

Who doesn't answer to Bush, and who wasn't even appointed by Bush... How does Greenspan sucking = Bush sucking?

[Velociryx]

I started off being firmly for the war in iraq.

I'm still glad we got Hussein out, however, when it became clear that no WMD's were to be found, I was among the number who dramatically changed his tune about the war.

Given proper execution and exit strategy (sadly, this was not a given), I still held the position that the war would be better than more of the same (no fly zones, sanctions that weren't working, etc).

Execution was slipshod, no exit strategy at all in the foreseeable future, freedoms being eroded by largely unnecessary PATACT 1 and 2. A whole new layer of beurocracy (Homeland Defense HUH?), and GePap is right. The number of people living on poverty now, after four years of the Shrub, is HIGHER than the # of people living in poverty when the man took office.

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you pretty it up...that ain't good, and part of the REASON for that is that the "jobs" this admin has been crowing about creating are of the burger flipping variety.

Lose ten software development jobs and open a new Mickey D's, and yes...you might have a net change of unemployment of 0.0%, but if those people are making 50% or more LESS than they used to be, then we got troubles.

The guy sucks a$$. His chief opponent sucks a$$.

If these two buffoons are the best we can pony up for the nation's highest office, I'm moving to Canada!

-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If these two buffoons are the best we can pony up for the nation's highest office, I'm moving to Canada!

-=Vel=-

Pack your bags... because that's what our wonderful election system has provided us with... dumb and dumber

[Velociryx]

Apparently so. I think I'm going to hooters on election night.

Sounds MUCH more entertaining than watching the electoral map....

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Waqtch out I hear they're banning the showing of hard nipples at hooters.

[Velociryx]

Nooooooooooooo!

-=Vel=-
(anybody ever tried to ban THAT and my butt really IS moving! LOL)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
IMO, Bush traded the economy for national security. And if you actually bother to perform the comparisons you will see that the economy hasn't suffered much at all.

Comparison to what? Things are worst today than they were in 1999- so what if they are better than they were on 1457? Thats a meaningless statement.

Accodingly, the president doesn't have much control over the economy. So neither blame nor praise should be give to them for the way the economy behaves when such large factors as bubbles, wars, and terrorist attacks are factored into it.

And for the umpteeth time- this is not about the president and the eocnomy, this is about the president and programs to stem poverty. Poverty under Clinton was not cut so drastically due to just economic growth- if so, why were the numbers so damned high when he entered after the Reagan years? No, poverty is driven down by government programs (remember that the numbers were low in the late 60's and early 70's?) beyond just economic growth- Bush has ignored anti-poverty programs. That was a policy he deserves all the blame for.

[Arrian]

Yeah, I mean, we can put up with being led by morons and ideological nutcases, but you better not take away our right to see hard nipples!

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

I'm voting for Oggie and Arrian this election! Hell with those other guys....

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

The main plank of my election campaign will be MORE COWBELL. I guess I'll need Guy as my running mate.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I yield the Prez office to Arrian. I want some cushy job that lands me on the Director's Board of some major corps. (more cushy jobs for after office)

[Velociryx]

Well, I mean, between MORE COWBELL and MORE NIPPLE, I don't see how you can lose, *especially* in light of the competition!

Long as you don't get caught on camera reading "My Pet Goat" or go on about your Purple Hearts of dubious origins, you're gonna coast all the way to the big house!

-=Vel=-