Would someone PLEASE take Romney by the hand and speak to him?! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Would someone PLEASE take Romney by the hand and speak to him?!


Skyhook
05-10-2012, 15:34
This man has a tendency to just not to know when to STFU.. or simply dismiss idiotic crap as crap and move on..
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/226653-romney-on-prank-back-in-high-school-i-did-some-dumb-things

Heaven help us all.


:faint:

Skyhook
05-10-2012, 15:37
OK, so we're kind of running woith already albeit in a different sort of approach.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1420558

:whistling::wavey:

Paul7
05-10-2012, 16:17
From the comment section:

Romney...Did a lot of dumb thing half a century ago in high school.

Obama...Did a lot of dumb things over the last three years as president.

Now considering we are electing a President, which of these two should the media be focusing on....





They'll be interviewing his kindergarten classmates next.

Alizard
05-10-2012, 17:58
This man has a tendency to just not to know when to STFU.. Yes, but he is a warm nostalgic glow for those of us who remember Dan Quayle.....

Alizard
05-10-2012, 18:02
From the comment section:

Romney...Did a lot of dumb thing half a century ago in high school.

Obama...Did a lot of dumb things over the last three years as president.

Now considering we are electing a President, which of these two should the media be focusing on...

Great thing about being a back-seat whiner, nobody can say with 100% certainty just exactly how much worse the economic train wreck would have been if the GOP had continued on it's course. It would have looked something like the European Union who chose to adopt massive cuts to "balance the economic problems" which completely killed their economic growth and now their whole ship is going under.... while US unemployment has been declining and the economy improving despite the best efforts of the GOP congress and Big Oil to scuttle the recovery.

The Obama bashers are like patients suing the doctors for cutting off the hand with gangrene to save them from dying of blood poisoning.

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 18:57
Romney is a weather vane. It's got him this far so he just can't help it.

Great thing about being a back-seat whiner, nobody can say with 100% certainty just exactly how much worse the economic train wreck would have been if the GOP had continued on it's course. It would have looked something like the European Union who chose to adopt massive cuts to "balance the economic problems" which completely killed their economic growth and now their whole ship is going under.... while US unemployment has been declining and the economy improving despite the best efforts of the GOP congress and Big Oil to scuttle the recovery.

The Obama bashers are like patients suing the doctors for cutting off the hand with gangrene to save them from dying of blood poisoning.

You are completely out of your mind.

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 19:56
Yes, but he is a warm nostalgic glow for those of us who remember Dan Quayle.....

Well, there he goes again.... Alitard.

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/DownloadedFile-1.jpg

Bruce H
05-10-2012, 21:05
The really sad part is Romney should be Obama's running mate, not his opposition.

michael_b
05-10-2012, 21:13
Real unemployment:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts


Great thing about being a back-seat whiner, nobody can say with 100% certainty just exactly how much worse the economic train wreck would have been if the GOP had continued on it's course. It would have looked something like the European Union who chose to adopt massive cuts to "balance the economic problems" which completely killed their economic growth and now their whole ship is going under.... while US unemployment has been declining and the economy improving despite the best efforts of the GOP congress and Big Oil to scuttle the recovery.

The Obama bashers are like patients suing the doctors for cutting off the hand with gangrene to save them from dying of blood poisoning.




Posted from my iPhone

Flintlocker
05-10-2012, 21:38
Great thing about being a back-seat whiner, nobody can say with 100% certainty just exactly how much worse the economic train wreck would have been if the GOP had continued on it's course. It would have looked something like the European Union who chose to adopt massive cuts to "balance the economic problems" which completely killed their economic growth and now their whole ship is going under.... while US unemployment has been declining and the economy improving despite the best efforts of the GOP congress and Big Oil to scuttle the recovery.

The Obama bashers are like patients suing the doctors for cutting off the hand with gangrene to save them from dying of blood poisoning.

Republicans look at the 'starve the beast' austerity in Europe with adoring eyes and they're sad they can't bring it here. It would be just the thing they need to crush Social Security, Medicare, public education, and a host of other programs.

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 21:41
Republicans look at the 'starve the beast' austerity in Europe with adoring eyes and they're sad they can't bring it here. It would be just the thing they need to crush Social Security, Medicare, public education, and a host of other programs.

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/liberal_crap.jpg

Who are you this time?

G29Reload
05-10-2012, 21:59
Great thing about being a back-seat whiner, nobody can say with 100% certainty just exactly how much worse the economic train wreck would have been if the GOP had continued on it's course. It would have looked something like the European Union who chose to adopt massive cuts to "balance the economic problems" which completely killed their economic growth and now their whole ship is going under.... while US unemployment has been declining and the economy improving despite the best efforts of the GOP congress and Big Oil to scuttle the recovery.

The Obama bashers are like patients suing the doctors for cutting off the hand with gangrene to save them from dying of blood poisoning.

Well, the Kool-aid drinkers have spoken. :upeyes:

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 22:10
Republicans look at the 'starve the beast' austerity in Europe with adoring eyes and they're sad they can't bring it here. It would be just the thing they need to crush Social Security, Medicare, public education, and a host of other programs.

:rofl: Republicans are just as content to buy Americans off with those programs as Democrats are. The only objection between the two political parties is who is in charge.

Starting to doubt Flint and Lizzy are zombie 1200. IIRC even 1200 feathers wasn't this belligerently stupid? The racism thing sure but politically I recall 1200 being a bit more astute.

Skyhook
05-11-2012, 06:46
Well, the Kool-aid drinkers have spoken. :upeyes:

:thumbsup:

The use of dream sequences and the word 'IF' is really revealing, isn't it?

:supergrin:

pugman
05-11-2012, 07:26
The Obama bashers are like patients suing the doctors for cutting off the hand with gangrene to save them from dying of blood poisoning.

Full Disclosure: I am neither a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. I vote issue and results. I've said it many times: in 2008 the Democrats could have run anyone and won. The previous administration (along with the GOP) had done just about everything it could to turn its base off to itself. Remember on the news you had Conservatives screaming into the cameras they would "vote for Obama just to p*ss off the Republican party." Really? Are people so stupid they think someone at the GOP headquaters was saying "oh no, Joe Average just said he won't vote for us...quick to the the Republican-moblie?"

I am an Obama basher because as a president he has done a horrible job just like GWB did a horrible job.

In your analogy the difference between the picture you have painted and me?

As an Obama Basher, I wouldn't have waited for my hand to go gangrene to go to the surgeon.

As an Obama Basher, I wouldn't have done whatever your person did to go the hospital in the first place. I can't imagine your person had it injured doing actual work

Paul7
05-11-2012, 10:26
Great thing about being a back-seat whiner, nobody can say with 100% certainty just exactly how much worse the economic train wreck would have been if the GOP had continued on it's course. It would have looked something like the European Union who chose to adopt massive cuts to "balance the economic problems" which completely killed their economic growth and now their whole ship is going under.... while US unemployment has been declining and the economy improving despite the best efforts of the GOP congress and Big Oil to scuttle the recovery.

The Obama bashers are like patients suing the doctors for cutting off the hand with gangrene to save them from dying of blood poisoning.

Wow, so much ignorance in one post. Obama IS pursuing the European plan, which will get us European results - permanent high unemployment and low growth.

Obama can only dream of a GOP economy. Care to compare Obama's 'recovery' (the worst on record) with Reagan's?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575504053230524906.html

Skyhook
05-11-2012, 12:38
Wow, so much ignorance in one post. Obama IS pursuing the European plan, which will get us European results - permanent high unemployment and low growth.

Obama can only dream of a GOP economy. Care to compare Obama's 'recovery' (the worst on record) with Reagan's?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575504053230524906.html
:popcorn:

Are those crickets I hear?!?

concretefuzzynuts
05-11-2012, 13:25
http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/images-8.jpg

Alizard
05-11-2012, 14:14
Wow, so much ignorance in one post. Obama IS pursuing the European plan, which will get us European results - permanent high unemployment and low growth.

Obama can only dream of a GOP economy. Care to compare Obama's 'recovery' (the worst on record) with Reagan's?




What a load. Obama inherits the worst economy since 1929 and you whine that he can't pull off a miracle. Reagan created EXACTLY what put the US economy into this hole: the great era of borrow-and-spend. Look at deficits under the Reagan admins and watch how the US was dragged into a hole that, quite honestly, I doubt we will ever get out of. Obama no longer has the option to keep running up the credit card since it has already been maxed out....

Actually, I hope Romney gets elected. They will pass a big fat tax cut for the wealthy, pat each other on the backs and then watch the economy sink into quicksand as the middle class becomes an extinct species.

be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I hope you do. I am sure the economy will grow like it did under Dubya... which is to say, flounder.

Alizard
05-11-2012, 14:25
St Reagan's Legacy:

With a recession that started during the Carter administration, the pressure was on him to fix the economy. While it is neither the President’s nor Congress’ job to interfere with the economy, throughout US history administrations always make it their priority.

With high unemployment, Reagan set out to increase the size of the government in order to decrease the number of unemployed. Obama used this same tactic when he took over office by creating over 16000 new IRS jobs, 1000 Department of Homeland Security, etc continuing a long standing tradition of using a distressed economy to increase the role and cost of government.

as he grew the role, size, and deficit of Government he implemented many tax increases that weren’t in line with a conservative platform. In 1983 Reagan signed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 which more than doubled the tax on gasoline from 4 to 9 cents per gallon. Keep in mind that a gallon of gas cost around $1.25. While many Republicans complain about the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), it was President Reagan that signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which would ensure that more people qualify for this additional tax.


In addition, the tax act of 1983 increased payroll taxes for corporations further encouraging companies to outsource their workforce. Acknowledging that Government is in the way of economic prosperity during his campaign, Reagan proved his point not by solving the problem but by implanting policies that perpetuated it. As a result the productive manufacturing base severely declined and left for more business friendly nations.


Proclaiming to be a conservative, Reagan promised to cut the size and spending of Government while stating that Government should stay out of the lives of individuals. In 1964 Reagan held a speech at the Republican convention in which he criticized big government and deficit spending. “We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years.” In that speech Reagan further criticized the Nation for debasing the US Dollar, a consequence of deficit spending policy and a practice that once in office he himself not only mimicked but took to new heights.
http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/03/ronald-reagan-hypocrisy-the-deficit-spending-anti-free-market-conservative/

Alizard
05-11-2012, 14:31
(Facts are stubborn things)




Ronald Reagan began US government deficit-spending addiction



While conservatives today celebrate Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday as a moment to recall the achievements of Reagan's presidency, one part of the Reagan myth, that he was a fiscal conservative who helped show the USA the road to prosperity through a leaner government, isn't supported by the facts.


////Ronald Reagan reversed a long trend of reducing the national debt as a percentage of GDP, which had been lowered by every previous president (except Gerald Ford) since the end of World War II.


Ronald Reagan exploded the federal debt, eventually to over a trillion dollars, by cutting taxes while demanding that the nation fund a huge expansion of the military.



Even the Wall Street Journal at the time was aware of the unsound nature of this Republican deficit-spending scheme. They and other newspapers warned of the "baleful effects of big [government] deficits."




///// the debt as a percentage of GDP ballooned under Reagan and George H. W. Bush (Bush I) back to a point it had been at under another Republican, Dwight Eisenhower.


It was finally during the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton that some progress was made in reducing the debt, and in obtaining budget surpluses for the first time in many years. That progress was wiped out by the deficit spending of Republican George W. Bush (Bush II), who again initiated a huge increase in spending for military and national security programs, but who lowered taxes, and encouraged a false sense of prosperity, through a temporary and extremely costly binge of deficit consumer spending.




http://www.examiner.com/article/ronald-reagan-began-us-government-deficit-spending-addiction

concretefuzzynuts
05-11-2012, 16:54
[B](Facts are stubborn things)

Alitard,

While I do agree both conservatives and liberals have a problem by spending too much money, and I am neither, putting Reagan anywhere near Obama in performance standards and results of policy is wishful and naive.

Not only are you comparing an 8 year two term presidency to a 3+ year presidency, you are comparing spending and not looking at recovery. Here:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/varvel_reagan_vs_obama.jpg

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/aaObama-vs-Reagan-job-June.jpg

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/July-2011Obama-Vs-reagan-GD-1.gif

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/recovery-graphs400.jpg

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/reagan-v-bush-obama-annual-domestic-spending-growth.jpg

Alizard
05-11-2012, 17:00
What is absurd is arguing with any Obama hater since history shows they will deny anything and everything. The truth is Reagan and both Bushes did more to run the US into irreversible debt than any other admins. I posted the truth. Obama inherited a dead economy in the midst of a WORLDWIDE collapse, and he also inherited a debt so high we run the risk of having our credit refused or downgraded. And, of course, the GOP congress will pick a fight and refuse to raise the debt limit even though they happily lived through the admins that ran it through the roof.

Here's what any working brain knows: when an economy collapses, you have to spend money to restart it. Massive cuts accelerate the death spiral. You have to have a short term increase in debt to create revenue and economic growth. That is very hard to do when the credit card is maxed out, Obama has been trying to walk the edge of the cliff while reviving a corpse...

but, who cares. Nothing he does will ever be right, he is satan incarnate and his re election will bring the end of the world.

Just keep believing Reagan was God and Obama is satan. People who stubbornly cling to abject ignorance deserve the government they get.

As politicians on Capitol Hill debate how much money to pour into the latest stimulus package, they may take heart from the findings of a recent study from the University of California San Diego, which suggests that government spending programs can be very useful in revitalizing the economy.
In a year-old study now being updated to reflect the ongoing economic crisis, UCSD economist Valerie Ramey took a look at government spending programs from the Eisenhower era through the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Her conclusion: For every $1 the government spent, it generated an average of $1.40 in economic growth.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/feb/01/1b1dean185149-government-spending-tool-revive-econ/









Mythbusters: Why Cutting Government Spending Won't Revive the Economy


By Alain Sherter Government spending is busting the budget, spiraling out of control, sentencing our children to penury. Hey, feel free to substitute your own metaphor -- they're all wrong, anyway.

Since 2001, a year the feds recorded a surplus of $128 billion, domestic spending on education (http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=0af47771-15fa-4ca2-b0a0-a8988a1e5863), health care, nutrition, environmental protection and other non-national security programs has soared by exactly $0, according to new figures (adjusted for inflation and population growth) supplied by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

So what is straining the budget? Defense, for one. As the helpful chart below from Talking Points Memo makes clear, spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/chart-of-the-day-out-of-control-spending-not-really-out-of-control-at-all.php), as well as on regular Pentagon business, has jumped 174 percent over the last decade. Medicare and Medicaid have gotten more expensive, too. And the piece of the puzzle that congressional Republicans are least likely to admit as driving the deficit -- falling tax revenue, which is at its lowest level in the U.S. since the 1960s.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43554586/mythbusters-why-cutting-government-spending-wont-revive-the-economy/

Alizard
05-11-2012, 17:21
Here is the economy Obama inherited from the GOP:


New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/business/24charts.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss) provided a jaw-dropping analysis of the dismal state of the economy under George W. Bush. Just days after the Washington Post documented that Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301.html?hpid=topnews) in the modern American presidency, the Times charted (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/01/23/business/20090124_CHARTS_GRAPHIC.html) his historic failure in expanding GDP, producing jobs and fueling stock market growth./////




As the Times revealed (article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/business/24charts.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss), charts here (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/01/23/business/20090124_CHARTS_GRAPHIC.html)), the only bright spot for the first MBA president's (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001315.htm) economic mismanagement was the low inflation rate during his tenure:During his administration, the country grew at the slowest overall pace of any recent president, whether measured in gross domestic product or employment.///...President Bush's administration was marked by a recession that began two months after he took office and another downturn in his final year of office. In the end, the economy during his term added enough jobs to employ only 14 percent of the added number of working-age Americans, the lowest proportion of any postwar administration./////
http://www.perrspectives.com/images/bush_econ_perform.JPG (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/01/23/business/20090124_CHARTS_GRAPHIC.html)
For the investor class so fond of perpetuating the myth of Republicans' superior economic stewardship, the collapse of the stock market during the Bush recession (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001313.htm) must be particularly galling. The Standard & Poor's 500 spiraled down at annual rate of 5.6% during Bush's time in the Oval Office, a disaster even worse than Richard Nixon's abysmal 4.0% yearly decline. (Only Herbert Hoover's cataclysmic 31% plunge makes Bush look good in comparison.)


////// Contrary to Republican mythology (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001207.htm), Americans fare better - much, much better - under Democratic administrations:As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover's presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.///



The superior performance of Democratic presidents covers virtually the entire spectrum of economic indicators. As Elliott Parker of the University of Nevada, Reno detailed in a 2006 paper (http://www.business.unr.edu/econ/wp/papers/UNRECONWP06008.pdf), since 1949 Democratic administrations have done better than Republican ones when it comes to unemployment (5.2% to 6.0%), job creation (-.0.4% decrease in unemployment, compared to 0.3% increase), GDP growth rate (4.2% to 2.9%), and even corporate profits as a share of GDP. And to be sure, he found the Dow benefits from Democrats in the White House.


There's no shortage of studies to show that stock market returns are higher under Democratic leadership. (As it turns out, Wall Street's performance is also better when Democrats control Congress (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/10/market_gains_by_1.html).) In 2000, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov of UCLA's Anderson School of Business (http://repositories.cdlib.org/anderson/fin/29-00/) concluded that "that the average excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidents - a difference of 9 percent per year for the value-weighted portfolio and 16 percent for the equal-weighted portfolio." As the New York Times (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/%7Ehal/people/hal/NYTimes/2003-11-20.html) noted of UCLA study in 2003:"It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats... ...Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov look at the excess market return - the difference between a broad index of stock prices (basically the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index) and the three-month Treasury bill rate - between 1927 and 1998. The excess return measures how attractive stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like short-term T-bills.
Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference."
http://www.perrspectives.com/images/democrats_stock_market.JPG (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/%7Ehal/people/hal/NYTimes/presidents.jpg)
In 2002, Slate (http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929) similarly concluded that "Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans":Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. ////// In defense of his bungled economic management, President Bush on his way out the door (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001358.htm) boasted of "52 months of uninterrupted job growth," an unimpressive performance which in any event now seems like a distant memory (Even more comical, the National Republican Congressional Committee (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/nrcc-the-economy-is-robust/) apparently still believes "Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.")


As George W. Bush exits the stage , it is worth remembering the words of Harry Truman (http://democrats.senate.gov/%7Edpc/pubs/107-2-227.html), as true today as when he uttered them generations ago:"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001367.htm

concretefuzzynuts
05-11-2012, 17:51
[QUOTE]What is absurd is arguing with any Obama hater since history shows they will deny anything and everything.

I never said I hated Obama, and I don't. You seem to be very emotional.

Obama inherited a dead economy in the midst of a WORLDWIDE collapse, and he also inherited a debt so high we run the risk of having our credit refused or downgraded.

Yes he did, but so did (the much hated by the left) Reagan. It's the recovery that makes him a better president. Fact.

Here's what any working brain knows: when an economy collapses, you have to spend money to restart it.

There is no proof of that statement. And don't mention Roosevelt, analysis of economic record proves that it didn't.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=258


Keynesian economics does not work, Supply Side Capitalism does. Fact.

but, who cares. Nothing he does will ever be right, he is satan incarnate and his re election will bring the end of the world.

Just keep believing Reagan was God and Obama is satan. People who stubbornly cling to abject ignorance deserve the government they get.


Again, your passion on the subject is driven by emotion, Alitard.

concretefuzzynuts
05-11-2012, 17:58
Here is the economy Obama inherited from the GOP:


http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001367.htm

Was this written by you? It seems more logical than emotional like your other writings. Or is it the propaganda you've been assigned to spread on this site?

Funny how the left always bash the defense spending (which I agree could be trimmed, as with all government spending). Yet you enjoy the freedom the military has provided for you. You seem smart, Alitard -think, don't blindly follow.

concretefuzzynuts
05-11-2012, 18:36
Ok, Alitard. I'm going out for the evening. Take time to think, call your Obama "handlers" to find out what to post next and under which screen name.

I'll be back to see what info you have to "change my mind". Although it seems like a lot of work and is obviously emotionally draining on you.

MadCityJack
05-11-2012, 19:09
Yes, but he is a warm nostalgic glow for those of us who remember Dan Quayle.....

This one works

Paul7
05-11-2012, 21:24
What a load. Obama inherits the worst economy since 1929 and you whine that he can't pull off a miracle.

I would argue Reagan inherited a worse economy. Do you know what the Misery Index was in 1981?

Reagan created EXACTLY what put the US economy into this hole: the great era of borrow-and-spend. Look at deficits under the Reagan admins and watch how the US was dragged into a hole that, quite honestly, I doubt we will ever get out of.

He was winning the Cold War, which wasn't cheap. Do you fault FDR for spending during WWII? Reagan trusted the Democrats' promise to cut spending for every dollar he raised taxes, they didn't of course. I will fault him for trusting Democrats.

Obama no longer has the option to keep running up the credit card since it has already been maxed out....

So why is he doing it? If there's one good thing out of Barry being POTUS, it is that Keynsian economics should be buried for good.

Actually, I hope Romney gets elected. They will pass a big fat tax cut for the wealthy, pat each other on the backs and then watch the economy sink into quicksand as the middle class becomes an extinct species.

Uh, the opposite happened when Reagan and JFK cut taxes. For some people, not even hindsight is 20/20.

be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I hope you do. I am sure the economy will grow like it did under Dubya... which is to say, flounder.

I would far rather live under Bush's economy than our failed POTUS.

concretefuzzynuts
05-12-2012, 19:13
Where'd you go Alitard?

barbedwiresmile
05-13-2012, 08:24
Republicans look at the 'starve the beast' austerity in Europe with adoring eyes and they're sad they can't bring it here.

I'm no fan of the republicrat party, but regarding your post: Europe has adopted a 'starve the beast' austerity? How familiar are you with European political economics and overall fiscal policy? "The beast" is doing just fine in Europe. Cruise by some posh restaurants in Brussels or Strasbourg and see for yourself. No beast is being starved, no bankers or bureaucrats hungry. Not sure how close you'll get to the various human tentacles of Leviathan, however. They'll be protected from you by a wall of "police men".