Romney on jobs numbers: 'Hammer blow' to middle class

Will Dockery wrote:

<quoted text>
That's one of my favorite topics, Commando, although I rarely find anyone who seems capable of discussing it intelligently and calmly... no offense, but intellect isn't exactly a Republican strong suit.
I've been writing about this for a few yars now, so rather than immediately repeat myself once again, since most Bush defenders tend to go away without responding once the facts begin to be exposed to daylight and modern times, here's mostly where it began, a run-down of what George Bush himself was left with, and the fact that he trashed all the progress made in the Clinton era.
Then we can take it from there:
https://groups.google.com/forum/... #!topic/alt.politics/DZqk6okjU D8
Exactly... that's how Obama came to be elected in the first place,
since in comparison with how Clinton left Bush and the way Bush
wrecked practically every bit of progress in eight years, the voters
decided they'd had enough of the Republican fiasco. Nobody, certainly
not Obama, ever claimed undoing the mess would be easy. Not at all...
Bush left a mess for the people who have to follow him to try to
fix... in this case, Obama. As a President George Bush was simply
inept, and he was too much of a stubborn dullard to think on his feet
and make changes in strategy when they were needed. "Mess" may not be
the proper word, maybe it is. I often notice these forgetful moments
when supporters of folks like Bush come up. I suppose I need to run
through a short reminder of how Bill Clinton left the situation (for
the popularly elected Al Gore, btw) and where things went during the
George Bush eight years... 1.) Economy: Good 2.) Wages: Up 3.)
Poverty: Down 4.) Unemployment: Down 5:) Housing: Up 6:) Crime: Down
7.) Stock Market: Up 8.) World: At Peace At the end of the Bush term
all the above eight points were pretty much at the opposite extreme...
Bush's "mess" does seem about right, after all. A fouled-up situation
like Bush left Obama will quite rightly take a number of years to set
right... and no one was under the delusion it would be an easy thing
to fix, the mess Bush made.-- Will Dockery 9-30-2011
--
Truck Stop Woman / Will Dockery & Henry Conley:
http://youtu.be/Hv6u6GNe6Kk

Columbus Native wrote:

Well it will be all over but the crying soon, until then I hope romney's greed gland continues to be exposed and the media keeps slamming the republican party. Only the 32% republican voters will remain upset,all we 68% non-republicans don't mind a bit.

Columbus Native wrote:

What he did to destroy the economy? Remove all regulatory controls over Wall Street. This allowed corrupt business folks to creat all kinds of dangerous lending. For instance, Housing. When I first started seeing 100% mortgage lending around 2002 I said here we go again. If you buy a house with nothing down and you fall on rough financial times you are much more likely to walk away from that house and tear it up in the mean time then if you are made to put 20% of your money down first on that home. Now if a bank or mortgage company holds to many of these bad loans they will go under themselves. Thse lending institutions are backed by you and me the government and when they go under you and me the taxpayer have to pay for the bad loans. The house is sold usually for less than what is owed on it and you and me pay the difference. Up until 2001 you had to come up with 20% of the cost and will bust your butt to save your 20% investment. This kind of lending was as unsound as George Bush's mind.

Columbus Native wrote:

What he did

You are wrong wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes. Some argue that the law, which allowed traditional banks and investment firms to be affiliated under one holding company, helped bring on the credit meltdown. Even if true, how was that George W. Bush's fault? The law was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999

Columbus Native wrote:

<quoted text>I know thats right Will.

Will Dockery wrote:

<quoted text>
Indeed, my friend... and notice how all the George Bush Groupies here pretend they didn't se it?
Maybe they /did/ somehow miss it when I posted it yesterday:
That's one of my favorite topics, Commando, although I rarely find anyone who seems capable of discussing it intelligently and calmly... no offense, but intellect isn't exactly a Republican strong suit.
I've been writing about this for a few yars now, so rather than immediately repeat myself once again, since most Bush defenders tend to go away without responding once the facts begin to be exposed to daylight and modern times, here's mostly where it began, a run-down of what George Bush himself was left with, and the fact that he trashed all the progress made in the Clinton era.
Then we can take it from there:
https://groups.google.com/forum/alt.politics
Exactly... that's how Obama came to be elected in the first place,
since in comparison with how Clinton left Bush and the way Bush
wrecked practically every bit of progress in eight years, the voters decided they'd had enough of the Republican fiasco.
Nobody, certainly not Obama, ever claimed undoing the mess would be easy. Not at all...
Bush left a mess for the people who have to follow him to try to
fix... in this case, Obama. As a President George Bush was simply
inept, and he was too much of a stubborn dullard to think on his feet and make changes in strategy when they were needed.
"Mess" may not be the proper word, maybe it is. I often notice these forgetful moments when supporters of folks like Bush come up. I suppose I need to run
through a short reminder of how Bill Clinton left the situation (for the popularly elected Al Gore, btw) and where things went during the George Bush eight years...
1.) Economy: Good
2.) Wages: Up
3.) Poverty: Down
4.) Unemployment: Down
5:) Housing: Up
6.) Crime: Down
7.) Stock Market: Up
8.) World: At Peace
At the end of the Bush term
all the above eight points were pretty much at the opposite extreme... and all attributable to the actions of George W. Bush.
Bush's "mess" does seem about right, after all. A fouled-up situation
like Bush left Obama will quite rightly take a number of years to set right... and no one was under the delusion it would be an easy thing to fix, the mess Bush made." -Will Dockery 9-30-2011
Of course the Republicans and Bush Groupies can't handle the truth, so they pretend the above never happened, and that ot all started years later with Obama.
Never mind that because he supported the failed Bush policies, John McCain was unelectable and practically handed the Presidency to Obama.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
This is silly. Unlike other posters you have noting to back up your statements
The eight years Bush was President was not that bad economically, even with the attacks of 911.
No one can name anything Bush did to mess up the economy and I think that is funny. Blame the war in Afhganistan or Iraq, even the debt incurred by these two wars does not match the money Obama lost.
Bush was a RINO who spent way more than he should and signed the first stimulus, that was our deathnail and I will join you in blaming him for that.
Obama is George Bush on steroids, increasing our national debt by 300%, that is why we are where we are. If you condemn Bush for his economic policies then you must condemn Obama to because he didn't change anything really, just just added 10 trillion to our national debt. Bush added a chunk too but Obama has him beat 10 times over on debt.
All of you are blinded by your partisanship, you only see what you want to see.

Columbus Native wrote:

<quoted text>Romney would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, so what alternative do we have since there are only 2 choices?

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
The eight years Bush was President was not that bad economically

Will Dockery wrote:

<quoted text>
That's absurd, and the same kind of statement that caused the McCain-Palin comedy team to lose the election last time, when McCain follishly stated that things were "fine" with Bush and that if elected he'd give us "more of the same".
Of course, like most Bush fans, you make these absurd statements yet never manage to provide anything to back them up... typical of what I call the "mass amnesia" the Repubican party seems to be suffering under right now.
In the immortal words of George W. Bush:
"Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... won't get fooled again."
--
Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
This is silly. Unlike other posters you have noting to back up your statements
The eight years Bush was President was not that bad economically, even with the attacks of 911.
No one can name anything Bush did to mess up the economy and I think that is funny. Blame the war in Afhganistan or Iraq, even the debt incurred by these two wars does not match the money Obama lost.
Bush was a RINO who spent way more than he should and signed the first stimulus, that was our deathnail and I will join you in blaming him for that.
Obama is George Bush on steroids, increasing our national debt by 300%, that is why we are where we are. If you condemn Bush for his economic policies then you must condemn Obama to because he didn't change anything really, just just added 10 trillion to our national debt. Bush added a chunk too but Obama has him beat 10 times over on debt.
All of you are blinded by your partisanship, you only see what you want to see.

_Gadfly_ wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree the eight years President Bush was in office was not that bad economically.

Columbus Native wrote:

<quoted text>You may as well try and talk to a mule as to try and reason with a republican. Same holds true for the liberal side of the democrat party. You see there are also coservative and middle of the road Democrats, but republicans think all dems and we independents are liberals.

Columbus Native wrote:

<quoted text>Romney would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, so what alternative do we have since there are only 2 choices?

Will Dockery wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama seems to have taken on a job he wasn't suited for... after all, George Bush was so inept he left a mess that was going to be difficult even for a pro.
Obama got in over his head almost immediately and apparently decided he'd focus on other problems.
So the George Bush fiasco remain, bigger than ever, four years later.

Dill Wockery wrote:

<quoted text>I had a flat tire today. IT'S GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT! My cat died. IT'S GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT.