The Democrats Are In HUGE Trouble

BubberMiley · April 12, 2010

I remember how certain posters around here saw Bush falling below the 50% threshold to be all the proof they needed that Bush was now a lame duck who shouldn't be attempting any new policies or legislation.

I don't recall that at all. Can you provide a citation, or are you just pretending again?

Shady · April 12, 2010

Lowden ® would win with 46 percent of the vote compared with 38 percent for Reid (D), 5 percent for Ashjian and 11 percent undecided
Link

Even with a third candidate, Reid loses his re-election bid. Say bye-bye to the Senate majority leader! :lol:

Shady · April 12, 2010

Uh oh! Big trouble for Boxer!

Boxer’s Fight in California
To reflect polling showing a tightening general election race and California voters’ particularly sour mood about the direction of their state and the country, CQ Politics is changing its race rating from Likely Democratic to the increasingly competitive Leans Democratic.

Two polls conducted in March showed Boxer’s lead over two potential Republican challengers narrowing to a virtual tie.

Link

punked · April 12, 2010

Even with a third candidate, Reid loses his re-election bid. Say bye-bye to the Senate majority leader!

HAHAHAHAH Lowden. Here she is saying the way to fix the health care system is AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP "Bartering with your doctor". Reid might be down in the polls but why would anyone vote for this lady that thinks you are going to go into your doctors office and say " I don't have the money for that heart surgery right now how about you take a bushel of corn instead?".

BubberMiley · April 12, 2010

She's probably one of those people who think bartering means haggling. :lol:

Shady · April 12, 2010

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Reid's going down. Wave goodbye to the current Democrat majority leader. If Boxer goes down as well, I may hold a huge kegger. All of you will be invited. Even the leftwingers.

BubberMiley · April 12, 2010

And when the Dems do better than expected, you'll just disappear completely. :lol:

But personally, I think only an economic illiterate would think the stimulus is a failure when the Dow has recovered from -8000 when Obama came into office to over 11000 today.

What do you expect from partisan trolls though?

Edited April 12, 2010 by BubberMiley

punked · April 12, 2010

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Reid's going down. Wave goodbye to the current Democrat majority leader. If Boxer goes down as well, I may hold a huge kegger. All of you will be invited. Even the leftwingers.

You forget NV is one of the states in the nation which have a "none of the above option" and with this lady on the ballot I think you are wishing and hoping.

sharkman · April 12, 2010

And when the Dems do better than expected, you'll just disappear completely.

But personally, I think only an economic illiterate would think the stimulus is a failure when the Dow has recovered from -8000 when Obama came into office to over 11000 today.

What do you expect from partisan trolls though?

Well then you are not paying attention.

The whole point of the stimulus was not to line the pockets of Wall Street, but to provide jobs. On that score the jury is still out. Get back to me when the Unemployment rate comes down to pre-Obama levels.

BubberMiley · April 12, 2010

Well then you are not paying attention.

Aren't you supposed to be looking for a link to back up your imagination?

Shady · April 13, 2010

But personally, I think only an economic illiterate would think the stimulus is a failure when the Dow has recovered from -8000 when Obama came into office to over 11000 today.

I would agree, if the stimulus' purpose was to increase the Dow. But it wasn't. It was suppose create jobs. More specifically, it was designed to keep unemployment from rising above 8%. What's the unemployment rate again? :lol:

Yeah. That's what I thought.

Smallc · April 13, 2010

The purpose was to keep the economy from crashing as low as it otherwise would have and for as long as it otherwise would have. It worked. Too bad for you.

Shady · April 13, 2010

The purpose was to keep the economy from crashing

No it wasn't. TARP was suppose to do that. Not the stimulus. Nice revisionist history.

Smallc · April 13, 2010

No it wasn't. TARP was suppose to do that. Not the stimulus. Nice revisionist history.

Sorry, wrong. TARP was to keep the economy from collapsing. A stimulus program is intended to keep an economy from feeling the full effects of a recession. The fact that the unemployment rate went even higher than was predicted means that things got worse than anyone could have predicted.

punked · April 13, 2010

No it wasn't. TARP was suppose to do that. Not the stimulus. Nice revisionist history.

Just like TARP helped FDR pull them out the recession in the 30s right?

Shady · April 13, 2010

The purpose was to keep the economy from crashing

TARP was to keep the economy from collapsing.

:blink:

So, in your words, the stimulus' purpose was to keep the economy from crashing. And TARP's purpose was to keep the economy from collapsing? Huh? :blink:

*edit*

LOL! :lol:

Edited April 13, 2010 by Shady

punked · April 13, 2010

So, in your words, the stimulus' purpose was to keep the economy from crashing. And TARP's purpose was to keep the economy from collapsing? Huh?

*edit*

LOL!

Yes can believe is such a complicated thing that sometimes it takes TWO whole different programs to fix. I know I was shocked to learn this. Almost like heart surgery is so complicated sometimes it take 3-4 doctors to do it. It is just insane TWO whole programs to stop an economy because there was more then one problem maybe. I don't know I just can't wrap my head around it, MORE THEN ONE PROBLEM AT A TIME? Next you tell me Obama can walk and chew bubble gum.

Smallc · April 13, 2010

So, in your words, the stimulus' purpose was to keep the economy from crashing. And TARP's purpose was to keep the economy from collapsing? Huh?

*edit*

LOL!

Those are two very different words.

BubberMiley · April 13, 2010

Next you'll be arguing about whether apples are more fruity than oranges. Both programs were implemented to provide liquidity to soften the blow of the collapse. Both have been quite effective.

Those of us who got a B in Economics 101 know that there would never be a jobs recovery if the jobs-making businesses are left to go down the toilet.

Even the smarter GOPers know that.

Shady · April 13, 2010

Those are two very different words.

LOL. What's the difference between the economy crashing or collapsing? :blink:

Anyways, you're completely wrong about the stimulus. According to the White House themselves...

Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure
Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%

Time

The purpose of the stimulus was to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. Those are the words of the White House. You can spin it all you want. It failed.

Smallc · April 13, 2010

The purpose of the stimulus was to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. Those are the words of the White House. You can spin it all you want. It failed.

Maybe you should read the six words the precede the and that comes before your bolding. And when something collapses, it's different than when something crashes.

Shady · April 13, 2010

Maybe you should read the six words the precede the and that comes before your bolding. And when something collapses, it's different than when something crashes.

Maybe you should read the actual words of President Obama and the administration regarding the purpose of the stimulus. It was to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. That's a fact. Facts can be very stubborn things sometimes!

punked · April 13, 2010

LOL. What's the difference between the economy crashing or collapsing?

Anyways, you're completely wrong about the stimulus. According to the White House themselves...

The purpose of the stimulus was to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. Those are the words of the White House. You can spin it all you want. It failed.

So can you imagine what it would have been like with out the Stimulus? It might have went up to the 12% we saw under Regan instead of the 9.7 it is now.

Smallc · April 13, 2010

Maybe you should read the actual words of President Obama and the administration regarding the purpose of the stimulus. It was to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. That's a fact. Facts can be very stubborn things sometimes!

Maybe you should read the whole sentence, and not just the part that you've bolded. Maybe, you should realize that the recession was far worse than anyone predicted, and that's why the unemployment rate went so high.

Shady · April 13, 2010

Maybe, you should realize that the recession was far worse than anyone predicted, and that's why the unemployment rate went so high.

No. The reason unemployment is still high is because Obama's been smothering the private sector since taking office. In fact, more jobs were lost in the 2001 recession than during the current recession. But the difference was that during the 2001 recession, Bush had slashed taxes, and the economy continued to create at least some jobs, offsetting a bit of the losses. Under Obama, the economy has created barely any jobs, so the the losses haven't been offset. It's what happens when you smother the private sector, with new taxes, new regulations, and new government entitlements. Not to mention sucking $800 billion dollars out of the private sector, and then injecting it back in via government, and claiming that you're stimulating anything.