The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Can Democrats explain why they believed doubling the national debt, imposing TARP, bailing out banks, the auto industry, and subprime mortgage borrowers with taxpayer money and adding 12 million illegals to the welfare rolls would improve the economy?

Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-j ... growth-any" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tool, you can't just make up stupid shit, you lying moron.

Loser Lucky, you just can't go on defending the indefensible. Nobody but you Useful Idiots buy Hussein Obozo's lies anymore.

And this despite utterly unprecedented economic stimulus.

The Fed has kept rates at effectively zero for so log that some investors are concerned about the possibility of a tiny rate increase later this year.

At some point, this rate hike "heroin" will have to end, and whether it will eventually have very bad effects in the realm of inflation is also unknown.

^^^^Here we see the reactionary clowns at their best, which ain't too good.

Insipid has been watching FOXnews so long he actually believes the truth is "indefensible."
And Insipid calls other people "Useful Idiots".

Meanwhile johnforbes, rather than correct RealTool on the faulty premise of this entire thread, only comments on the Fed, as if the Fed has anything to do with the Democrats.
As in his daily life, impotent johnny simply accepts all the lies rather than correct RealTool on any of them.

Even I didn't think you were that dishonest, johnny.
I was wrong.

You always know when a libtard knows he's lost the argument, they attack FOX news.
FOX and the Koch brothers boogey man are their fall back defenses.

Oh, and I was listening to O'Reilly last night on XM and he absolutely devastated Hussein Obozo with reason, logic and facts, and not one opinion. His economic failures, his refusal to take on ISIS and the growing threat from Iran, this incompetent fool is creating disasters we will have to live with far after he has left in disgrace and is hiding out in Hawaii.

Insipid, there is no argument here to lose.

You're the one who claimed the truth is indefensible.

No one would bother discussing anything with you beyond that ridiculous stance.

That's why I dismiss you out of hand. :lol:

I hope it's not the same hand that's covered by lotion and jizz. Keep that one to yourself.

Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record.

End of debate.

I bet he also has the lowest GPA of any US President in this country's history.

RealJustme wrote:Can Democrats explain why they believed doubling the national debt, imposing TARP, bailing out banks, the auto industry, and subprime mortgage borrowers with taxpayer money and adding 12 million illegals to the welfare rolls would improve the economy?

Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-j ... growth-any" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TARP was fabricated by the Bush administration not the democrats, and it was the right thing to do.

Bush was right when he claimed "this sucker could go down." And the republicans subsequently rejected the bailout package which cratered the markets.

I suppose that Justme could figure out who else who could leverage up the hundreds of billions to prop up the failing financial system other than the government???

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/busin ... l?sq=&_r=0

Also, Bush wanted to spend $700 billion on TARP.

Once Obama got into office, he sent legislation to the Hill which became "Dodd-Frank" and cut that spending to $475 billion.

Obama refused to spend another $225 billion the Republicans were going to waste. What an S.O.B, huh?

The TARP program generated a 15 billion dollar profit for the government.

So now the GOP wants to roll back Dodd Frank legislation?

We would all like to roll back the silly leftist postings from Elkindope and Clownsucker.

And Clownflabber himself would like to roll back the roll of fat which is rolling over his belt.

Romney was first against the taxpayer bailout of GM.

Then he was for the taxpayer bailout of GM.

You would really think that a financier like Romney would know that there is no private financial institution that could leverage up the 10s of billions to GM in a liquidity crisis, nor during 'normal' economic times...

Romney was correct the first time, and the second was doubtless his revised position as a candidate.

Jeb first said he would invade Iraq again, then revised his position 180 degrees as his advisors pondered where Jeb should stand as a candidate.

Obama promised to develop health care on C-Span, but didn't. He lied and lied and lied about Obamacare, about Benghazi, and about the IRS scandal.

Forbestardo goes and spins some bailout baloney. Romney was wrong. There was no capital available from the private sector to bailout GM during the financial crisis. That's why TARP was created. So where was the money supposed to come from? The Banks???

So Romney reversed his position based upon hindsight?

As for Jeb Duyba, he was first for Iraq then was against it?

:roll:

Clown instead of pointing your finger to look in that direction, address the issue. Yeah we all know Bush once took a picture holding a plastic turkey but that doesn't explain why Obama has the lowest 1stQ GDP growth of any President ever.

"Clown instead of pointing your finger to look in that direction, address the issue."-RealTool

Tool, you're the one who started the thread and said TARP (among other things) needed to be justified.
If you didn't want to talk about it, then don't post asking about it, dimwit.

You framed "the issue" with your question above and said that "Democrats" need to explain why they thought all those things would improve the economy.
Of course, virtually every word of your idiotic question is unrelated to reality, so Democrats don't need to explain any of it. It's all a lie from the ignorant for the low information voters like yourself.

And the fact is, they don't need to explain 1st quarter GDP anyway. Economists have already explained it and it has nothing to do with Democrats specifically. And to the extent that it is linked to a particular Party, it arguably would have more to do with Republican trade policies over the past 35 years.

If you want to talk about 1st quarter GDP, then start a thread about it and not all the other bullshit you said needed explaining.

You framed "the issue" with your question above and said that "Democrats" need to explain why they thought all those things would improve the economy.

So you're saying, they're not responsible for their actions because they're Democrats, typical.

So you're saying, all you have is made up stupid shit I never said, typical.

Loser Lucky, in between bong hits, fighting a desperate rearguard action defending the indefensible and failed policies of a failed communist community organizer (not to mention being a jug eared, cum guzzling, sperm burping darling of the Chicago bath house scene, bastard son of a white trash mother who loved to spread her legs for the bruthas, and an irresponsible, drunken, whore hopping, underage white girl fucking, communist Muslim father. Just a thought, Bubba Boy Clinton's daddy was an irresponsible drunk who killed himself while driving drunk. Commonality? Hmmmm.... ).

This board used to be infested with fellow travelers and pinkos of various shades. Now it's down to the Useful Idiots Loser Lucky and the clueless union dupe Elkindoofus (Grog/Malcom doesn't count, being a Canuck. His opinions on anything other than Molson beer, maple syrup and failed seduction techniques are irrelevant).

^^^^^^^^^^^^

LOL....good one...you crack me up. Kudos.

Sure, tvd, it's exactly the same post Insipid's been regurgitating for three years. He's got nothing else, but to you the dumb schtick just never gets old, does it? I bet you're still guffawing over the Three Stooges like a 12-year-old, aren't you?
Insipid is so unimaginative I can't even finish reading his crap any more before I'm so bored I practically fall asleep, and I read pretty much everything everyone posts.

tvd, consider what I know with absolute certainty, that I am not the Lucky who butt-hurt Insipid so thoroughly that he's still here whining about it three years later.
With the fact in mind that I am not Lucky, read his post again and see if it sounds like a "good one" or more like the ravings of a pitiable homeless, schizophrenic mental case you might see wandering the streets of some big city.
Think about how someone who, for years, is absolutely convinced you are "Robert Goulet" and who pops up in your yard ranting about it every time you open your front door would sound to you. Then you will know how I feel about it.

And what makes this one any funnier than when johnforbes tells his same old jokes over and over? At least johnforbes has three jokes. PainfulTooth only has one rant.

Loser Lucky, the well trained angry ankle biter, knows when I crack the whip, he jumps.
Now, throw your little tantrum and then crawl back under the bed.

Clownlicker has the lowest net worth, not to mention the lowest IQ, of any person here.

Clown...no I don't watch the Three Stooges.....sick of that worthless trio.
I thought the rant on Obama, his family, and the Molson and maple syrup comment were quite funny.

As we all know, truly funny humor has an element of truth.

Sure, tvd, it's exactly the same post Insipid's been regurgitating for three years.

I've never seen it, so can you point out where's he's made that post in the past? :?:

Clown, still waiting, can you point out where's he's made that post in the past? Your credibility (what you have left) is on the line, come on you can do it.

What is so curious is why Loser Lucky is so desperate to be dissociated with his previous screen name. Yes, he was permenently banned as Lucky, but Grog is back and James while currently dead still posted under another name. Why is Loser Lucky so concerned with hiding out?