 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / September 2008{OT} Change
This has to make you think a little bit, if not then, keep your blinders on! George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six, the economy was fine. A little over one year ago: 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%. 4) The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 + 5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations on the high seas, living large! But American's wanted CHANGE! So, in 2006, they voted in a Democratic Congress and yep - - we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted 2) Gasoline has been over $4 a gallon! 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase) 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS, and prices are still dropping 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low ~ ~ 11,316 - -$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE . . . AND WE SURE AS HECK GOT IT!!! NOW OBAMA, THE DEM'S CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT (and the polls (sadly) say he's gonna be the Man) CLAIMS HE'S REALLY GONNA GIVE US CHANGE! JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND? -- > This has to make you think a little bit, if not then, keep your blinders > on! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high 2 1/2 year high? What about the fact that the consumer confidence was far higher under Clinton than Bush? > 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon And less under Clinton. > 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%. And it was lower under Clinton. > 4) The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 + And it came down when Bush fell asleep at the wheel and let people buy mortgages that they could not afford by failing to regulate the market properly. > 5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations on the > high seas, living large! Yet there are more Americans without health insurance than under Clinton. Some living large! > But American's wanted CHANGE! We got Bush. Now, we want someone with a clue. > So, in 2006, they voted in a Democratic Congress and yep - - we got > 'CHANGE' all right. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS > INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! These are problems that were created by the incompetence of Bush. From your argument, we need a Democratic President. Go Obama. Jeff > YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE . . . AND WE SURE AS HECK GOT IT!!! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND? > -- In article <b4d7cbf1-9b2d-4726-ad04-aab9644232b5@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > This has to make you think a little bit, if not then, keep your blinders > > on! [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND? > > -- You're full of sh.t Jeff. -- > In article > <b4d7cbf1-9b2d-4726-ad04-aab9644232b5@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > This has to make you think a little bit, if not then, keep your blinders on! > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > > > From your argument, we need a Democratic President. Go Obama. > You're full of sh.t Jeff. You say that every time you can't counter the other person's claims, IOW every time you're full of sh.t yourself. Explain exactly what actions by the Congressional Democrats have resulted in the problems you've cited. After all, the Democrats control Congress by only a one-person margin and haven't been able to exploit their new status at all, thanks their ineffective organization, a president who suddenly started to issue vetoes in 2006, and a highly effective Republican minority. >> You're full of sh.t Jeff. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > organization, a president who suddenly started to issue vetoes in > 2006, and a highly effective Republican minority. He's not the first person that doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation. >Explain exactly what actions by the Congressional Democrats have >resulted in the problems you've cited. You aren't serious...are you?  SignatureScott in Florida In article <29087dbb-7384-4707-a332-6ca372ed09ca@q5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <b4d7cbf1-9b2d-4726-ad04-aab9644232b5@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > organization, a president who suddenly started to issue vetoes in > 2006, and a highly effective Republican minority. You're full of sh.t too. -- > This has to make you think a little bit, if not then, keep your blinders on! > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS > INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! You're not thinking, either, because you're confusing correlation with cause & effect, and the 2006 election did not cause the economy to tank. Rather it was caused by the cumulative effects of excessive tax cuts combined with excessive spending, excessively low interest rates to finance the resulting deficits and boost the economy, and negligent oversight of the financial markets. You've given the type of lame argument expected only from a dishonest and highly partisan political operative who believes in party first, country last. In article <6bb5af25-b003-4ed5-9401-390883b8ccb0@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > This has to make you think a little bit, if not then, keep your blinders on! > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > and highly partisan political operative who believes in party first, > country last. You are full of sh.t, you drunk. -- Here we go again with the Dims eight year "Big Lie" that the Bush tax RATE cuts for all Americans caused the problem.. Do a search and you will discover that as it did when Kennedy and Reagan cut the tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury went UP not DOWN. In the case of the Bush tax RATE cuts the income to the US Treasury went UP in every quarter of every year. The problem is and has been the spending by the Congress to buy votes. If you really want to see what happens when taxes are raised, as Nobama is telling us he will do, search the Congressional Record for what happened to the income to the Treasury when Bush 41 and Clinton raise the tax RATES. >> In the PAST YEAR: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and highly partisan political operative who believes in party first, > country last. > Here we go again with the Dims eight year "Big Lie" that the Bush tax RATE > cuts for all Americans caused the problem.. Do a search and you will > discover that as it did when Kennedy and Reagan cut the tax RATES, the > income to the US Treasury went UP not DOWN. You've fallen for "the Big Lie." Actually I don't believe you've fallen for it, you know it's a lie but are just playing dumb. Tax revenues per person _did_ increase in the 1980s, but actually at a sub-par level. Tax revenues per person increased far less in the 1980s (18%) than they had in the 1970s (25%) or would in the 1990s (40%). The 1990s, which had the largest growth per person, began with tax increases from Bush I and Clinton. Please, whatever else you do, educate yourself on the big lie of Reaganomics. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.