Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Hmmmm. No Bounce from Edwards

L

Longhorn85

New member
Edwards and Kerry have been kissing and hugging a lot for the cameras, but apparently it has made little difference with the electorate.


"WASHINGTON (AP) - John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate was received favorably by the public, polls suggest, but it has made little difference so far in the race with President Bush.

Kerry strategists are trying to lower expectations for a "bounce" in the polls that presidential candidates sometimes get after choosing a running mate or attending a convention. Bush strategists were quick to raise expectations of a double-digit "bounce" for the Kerry-Edwards team by the end of the Democratic National Convention."


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040711/D83OSE400.html

Maybe he should have picked Al Sharpton.
 
It has only been... what? 6 days. Jesus Christ, give it a break.

Who is going to vote for bush?

He already has lost favor in scientists, the Log Cabin Republicans, Palm Beach GOP, Southern Baptist churches and now the NAACP for not attending a meeting his entire term. 4 years and he can't sit down with them for 2 hours.

Kiss your boy goodbye come November.
 
IwouldSlamU said:
i cant imagine another 4yrs of bush...........HELL
Click to expand...


don't worry, God has gone on record saying he didn't "really want Bush to be President". No matter how many times Bush claims he did.
 
AAP said:
It has only been... what? 6 days. Jesus Christ, give it a break.

Who is going to vote for bush?

He already has lost favor in scientists, the Log Cabin Republicans, Palm Beach GOP, Southern Baptist churches and now the NAACP for not attending a meeting his entire term. 4 years and he can't sit down with them for 2 hours.

Kiss your boy goodbye come November.
Click to expand...

lmao, Bush lost support from the NAACP? You need to have something first in order to lose it.
 
Bush will win, barring a major incident in Iraq, or an attack of significance here.

Better luck than his dad.

Next time the dems should pick a candidate with at least a token measure of charisma and likability
 
Bush will lose

mark it down

save this link

i know this shit, bush will not be president, he didnt even get the majority vote in 2000 and he will get even less in 04
 
I truly believe Bush will win thi selection, he has pumped our culture full of nothing but fear, and this will be his savior.
 
Olsen Twins Banger said:
he didnt even get the majority vote in 2000
Click to expand...

1) Is this supposed to be news?

2) Are you aware that this doesn't matter in an American Presidential Election? What part of electoral vote don't you understand?

3) Bush will win a majority of states again. Liberal population centers like LA, NY, Philly and Chicago will vote democratic, as usual, giving Kerry a good percent of the popular vote.
 
Longhorn85 said:
1) Is this supposed to be news?

2) Are you aware that this doesn't matter in an American Presidential Election? What part of electoral vote don't you understand?

3) Bush will win a majority of states again. Liberal population centers like LA, NY, Philly and Chicago will vote democratic, as usual, giving Kerry a good percent of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

1) NO
2a) yes
2b) i understand it all
3) No he won't, Bush will lose
 
AAP said:
4 years and he can't sit down with them for 2 hours.
Click to expand...

The NAACP is a turrist organization.

I do think, though, that Bush will probably win come November.
 
AAP said:
It has only been... what? 6 days.
Click to expand...

This is an entire week of news cycles in an election year. The Olympics are around the corner. Time is short.

Edwards was supposed to provide a bounce and a shot of juice into the ticket.

He didn't.
 
He'll provide bounch when he bitch slaps cheney in the debates. Dont fuck with a trial lawyer in a debate, he'll cut your throat with a smile on his face!
 
jestro said:
He'll provide bounch when he bitch slaps cheney in the debates. Dont fuck with a trial lawyer in a debate, he'll cut your throat with a smile on his face!
Click to expand...

Nah. Cheney is unflappable in debates. I suspect Edwards will come off looking like a frustrated boy scout.
 
jestro said:
He'll provide bounch when he bitch slaps cheney in the debates. Dont fuck with a trial lawyer in a debate, he'll cut your throat with a smile on his face!
Click to expand...


HAHA!!!

I really would love to see a debate between him and shrub bush. bush can't even stumble his way through a sentence, let alone a debate.
 
AAP said:
HAHA!!!

I really would love to see a debate between him and shrub bush. bush can't even stumble his way through a sentence, let alone a debate.
Click to expand...

Deja Vu here. This is exactly what was said prior to the Bush Gore debates. Final score: Bush 3, Gore 0.
 
i seriously do not understand why anyone would vote for him based off of how he brought the nation into a shithole after clinton. clinton reversed all the bullshit started by reagan/bush, then everything goes great, then as soon as he takes office, wham, he puts everything back the way it was like his daddy had it and everything once again goes to shit. You'd think he'd be smart enough as predifuckindent to at least learn from the past but no. what a fucking moron.
 
Burning_Inside said:
i seriously do not understand why anyone would vote for him based off of how he brought the nation into a shithole after clinton. clinton reversed all the bullshit started by reagan/bush, then everything goes great, then as soon as he takes office, wham, he puts everything back the way it was like his daddy had it and everything once again goes to shit. You'd think he'd be smart enough as predifuckindent to at least learn from the past but no. what a fucking moron.
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting or ignoring that Bill Clinton handed a recession to George W Bush? Are you forgetting or ignoring that Bill Clinton took no action to stop global terrorism?

You're the moron if you think Bill Clinton did half as much for this country as did Ronald Reagan. Reagan and George HW Bush will be remembered as great leaders of America. Bill Clinton will be remembered for taking advantage of an intern in the Oval Office and then lying through his teeth about it.
 
Actually longhorn, you are the moron. The reason the economy crashed is because no one had faith in Bush at all. He had no business plan.

besides, it was just a couple of months ago you were crying that Bush shouldn't be held accountable for the economy because a President doesn't make decisions that directly affect it. But now you are kissing his ass and trying to make it sound as if he single handly came along and fix things overnight. Get a clue and make up your mind which story you are going to follow.

And as far as your little "unflappable" comment.... :rolleyes: you said the same thing about Burnt Rice and she certainly flapped on the stand.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Are you forgetting or ignoring that Bill Clinton handed a recession to George W Bush?
Click to expand...

Ahh, the conservative classic. When the economies bad with republican leadership, a)the president has little control over the economy or b)it was a mess left over from the last guy.
 
"Burnt Rice." Never heard that one before. Thats pretty funny. ;)
 
Longhorn85 said:
Are you forgetting or ignoring that Bill Clinton handed a recession to George W Bush? Are you forgetting or ignoring that Bill Clinton took no action to stop global terrorism?

You're the moron if you think Bill Clinton did half as much for this country as did Ronald Reagan. Reagan and George HW Bush will be remembered as great leaders of America. Bill Clinton will be remembered for taking advantage of an intern in the Oval Office and then lying through his teeth about it.
Click to expand...

that sad thing is Clinton will probally be remebered as a bad president

but he led america 10000x better than GW

and america was a better in all aspects when clinton was president
 
jestro said:
Ahh, the conservative classic. When the economies bad with republican leadership, a)the president has little control over the economy or b)it was a mess left over from the last guy.
Click to expand...


and don't forget c) when the economy recovers, it is all "growth" and that the president is the reason why.
 
AAP and Longhorn:

Yes or No...does the president directly effect the economy?
 
They should've let howard dean give the announcement so he could do that yell.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Are you forgetting or ignoring that Bill Clinton handed a recession to George W Bush? Are you forgetting or ignoring that Bill Clinton took no action to stop global terrorism?

You're the moron if you think Bill Clinton did half as much for this country as did Ronald Reagan. Reagan and George HW Bush will be remembered as great leaders of America. Bill Clinton will be remembered for taking advantage of an intern in the Oval Office and then lying through his teeth about it.
Click to expand...
Clinton handed a recession over? Dude, between 92 and 2000, the US economy produced the longtest sustained economic expansion in US history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, which from what I've read is the highest level of job creation ever recorded, and at the end of Clinton's run, the US economy was booming with a $263 billion surplus.

The when your ass-buddy Bush took over, he brought back the supply side economic bullshit principles of his daddy, giving tax cuts to the rich. In just one term, that idiot managed to turn a $236 billion surplus into a $500 billion defecit, and if I'm not mistaken, that's the largest in the history of the US. By the time all that Reagan junk was over with, Bush Sr was running a record annual defecit of $290 billion per year, and Oh yeah, the U.S was in a recession.

Anything else?
 
Burning_Inside said:
Clinton handed a recession over? Dude, between 92 and 2000, the US economy produced the longtest sustained economic expansion in US history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, which from what I've read is the highest level of job creation ever recorded, and at the end of Clinton's run, the US economy was booming with a $263 billion surplus.

The when your ass-buddy Bush took over, he brought back the supply side economic bullshit principles of his daddy, giving tax cuts to the rich. In just one term, that idiot managed to turn a $236 billion surplus into a $500 billion defecit, and if I'm not mistaken, that's the largest in the history of the US. By the time all that Reagan junk was over with, Bush Sr was running a record annual defecit of $290 billion per year, and Oh yeah, the U.S was in a recession.

Anything else?
Click to expand...


You da' man.
 
Actually why so many insist on guessing at this information is beyond me.

Clinton inherited an economy growing at a 3%+ clip for the last two quartes of the Bush administration.

The stock market began booming, and interest rates began dropping, after the 94 Congressional sweep of the republicans. Coupled with unprecedented productivity growth in the 90's, that was far more impactive on the economy than any government action. Thank Sam Walton and Bill Gates among others.

The stock market lost $5 trillion dollars towards the end of the second Clinton Administration. Anyone who imagines that people could lose that much money as a nation, and it not impact the economy, is dreaming. Bush had nothing to do with that scenario. The recession began just before, or just after (within a two month swing) of Bush taking office. It had nothing to do with him, and he had not instituted a single economic policy to that point.

Even the most liberal and leftist economists acknowledge that the tax cuts and stimulus spending played a large part in rebounding the economy. We can argue over where it could have been spent instead to accomplish the same goal, but not over the fact that his policies positively impacted our turn around.

Vote for Bush or Kerry, I really don't care. But don't pretend to understand economics when you clearly do not
 
Last edited:
JerseyArt said:
Actually why so many insist on guessing at this information is beyond me.

Clinto inherited an economy growing at a 3%+ clip for the last two quartes of the Bush administration.

The stock market and interest rates began booming after the 94 Congressional sweep of the republicans. Coipled with unprecedented productivity growth in the 90's, that was far more impactive on the economy than any government action. Thank Sam Walton and Bill Gates among others.

The stock market lost $5 trillion dollars twoards the end of the second Clinton Administration. Antone who imagienbs that people could lose that much money as a nation, and it not impact the economy, is dreaming. Bush had nothing to do with that scenario. The recession began just before, or just after (within a two month swing) of Bush taking office. It had nothing to do with him, and he had not instituted a single economic policy to that point.

Even the most liebral and leftis economists acknowledge that the tax cuts and stimulus spending playted a large part in rebounding the economy. We can argue over where it could have been spent instead to accomplish the same goal, but not over the fact that his policies positively impacted our turn around.

Vote for Bush or Kerry, I really don't care. But don't pretend to understand economics when you clearly do not
Click to expand...

Thank god someone else here knows what they're talking about concerning economics.

Also, people point to the ridiculously low unemployment rate under Clinton and applaud him for it, then point to Bush and blame him for the loss of jobs. What they refuse to see is that there was significant overemployment during Clinton's administration with inflated expectations brought about during the explosion in dot-coms. Along with the resulting dot com bust, businesses began to realize they were wrong in their predictions, and hence had to cut jobs in order to cut their losses. This wasn't Clinton's fault, and it wasn't Bush's fault.
 
Hmm ok and does anyone remember last year about this time when the unemployment rate hit 6.4%, the highest it was in like 10 years?

Geeeeeeee, I guess that's because the economy was so damn stong companies decided to cut jobs cause they couldn't afford to pay workers.

All hail Bush.
 
LOL

Whooshhh
 
here is your bounce meathead....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/presidential/index.html

Poll finds apparent Kerry lead in close contest
Survey taken after Edwards tapped for vice presidential run
Monday, July 12, 2004 Posted: 6:15 PM EDT (2215 GMT)


(CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry apparently leads President Bush among likely voters surveyed after he chose Sen. John Edwards as his Democratic running mate, but the race remains close, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

The survey of 706 likely voters, conducted between Thursday and Sunday, found 50 percent would support the Kerry-Edwards ticket, and 46 percent would vote for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points. The survey of likely voters weighted the sample to assume a turnout of 50 percent, consistent with recent presidential elections.

Kerry announced his choice for the vice presidential nomination last Tuesday, and the next day the two made their first public appearances together as running mates.

Bush campaign officials had said Kerry would get a substantial surge after his selection, but the Kerry campaign sought to keep expectations in check, saying the senator from Massachusetts has already seen a steady rise in polls.

A previous poll, conducted June 21-23, found Bush barely leading Kerry, 48-47. Bush had led Kerry as much as 55-43 in similar polls going back to early January.

In the current poll, a wider sample of 891 registered voters showed a slightly larger apparent lead for Kerry, but one that was still within the margin of error.

Fifty-one percent said they would vote for Kerry-Edwards, and 44 percent supported Bush-Cheney.

Although Democrats have expressed concerns that independent candidate Ralph Nader could spoil the election for Kerry, the poll showed the Nader-Peter Camejo ticket having little effect.

Given all three options, 50 percent of likely voters still said they would vote for Kerry-Edwards, while Bush-Cheney dropped from 46 percent to 45 percent. Only 2 percent of likely voters said they would pick Nader-Camejo.
 
Hooch, that really is no bounce at all.

Besides, the only poll that counts is held in November.
 
75th said:
Hooch, that really is no bounce at all.

Besides, the only poll that counts is held in November.
Click to expand...

So then why did you even make a thread about it? Typical neo-con group think......... ignore any news or information that does not support your agenda.
 
Hengst said:
So then why did you even make a thread about it? Typical neo-con group think......... ignore any news or information that does not support your agenda.
Click to expand...

Umm, I made no such thread, and I am probably the furthest thing from a neo-con. I want Bush out, but I dont want Kerry in.
 
75th said:
Umm, I made no such thread, and I am probably the furthest thing from a neo-con. I want Bush out, but I dont want Kerry in.
Click to expand...

In your 200 year old election system you have no other choice though. It's either Bush or Kerry, since you are unable to make a preferential vote a vote for Nader or anyone else is really a vote for the candidate you like least.

The only sensible thing to do is to decide who you dislike less out of Bush and Kerry and then to vote for the other one, otherwise your vote is wasted.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-07-12-poll-election_x.htm

Poll: Edwards pick gives Kerry's campaign a boost
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — John Kerry gets a boost nationwide from his choice of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as running mate. But Edwards fails to make his home state competitive, the first in a series of state-by-state polls by USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup shows. (Related item: Latest poll results)
Democratic hopes that Edwards' selection would broaden the list of battleground states in the South were dented by the survey. In it, President Bush and Vice President Cheney hold a commanding 54%-39% lead among likely voters in North Carolina. The lead narrows to 49%-43% among registered voters.

Nationwide, however, Edwards gives Kerry a six-point bounce. The Democrats now lead Bush-Cheney by 50% to 45% among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%. Three weeks earlier, before Kerry announced his vice presidential choice, Bush led Kerry by a single point.

The national survey was taken Thursday through Sunday, the state poll Friday through Sunday. The margin of error for likely voters is +/- 4 percentage points in the national survey, +/- 5 in the state.

Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign, says the findings indicate that the Tar Heel state remains safely Republican in the presidential election. Bush demolished Al Gore by 13 points there in 2000. The state hasn't voted for the Democratic contender since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

But Mark Mellman, Kerry's pollster, points to a huge turnout for Kerry and Edwards at a rally in Raleigh on Saturday and notes the Bush campaign is airing TV ads in the state. "When they take their ads off we'll know they believe" the state isn't competitive, he says.

In the national poll, Edwards didn't help Kerry's draw among Southerners, which was 44% before and after Edwards joined the ticket.

He did help Kerry consolidate support among Democrats and those who lean Democratic. Three weeks earlier, 85% of those voters supported Kerry. Now 92% do.

The findings suggest that Edwards is likely to be less focused on his native South than on Midwest battlegrounds. In states such as Ohio and Iowa, his pitch on working-class angst seems to resonate.

While comparisons are complicated, the Edwards "bounce" is about the same as the 6-point gain Bill Clinton got when he chose Gore in 1992. But it's less than the 12-point jump among likely voters that another running mate gave the top of his ticket: When Bush chose Cheney in 2000.


BOING!!!
 
The biggest bounce that I hear right now is longhoot's head thumping against the desk because another one of his Bush Is My Hero Is My Nose Brown threads backfired again.
 
Those polls are stats from samples, bro. They are not even good indicators even if the poll has solid internal validity. Come on now, my man. More solid evidence is like...the actual election itself.

Longhorn85 said:
Edwards and Kerry have been kissing and hugging a lot for the cameras, but apparently it has made little difference with the electorate.


"WASHINGTON (AP) - John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate was received favorably by the public, polls suggest, but it has made little difference so far in the race with President Bush.

Kerry strategists are trying to lower expectations for a "bounce" in the polls that presidential candidates sometimes get after choosing a running mate or attending a convention. Bush strategists were quick to raise expectations of a double-digit "bounce" for the Kerry-Edwards team by the end of the Democratic National Convention."


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040711/D83OSE400.html

Maybe he should have picked Al Sharpton.
Click to expand...
 
The only bounce that anyone has referenced so far from two or three different polls, have all been barely larger than the margin of error. That is weak compared to the expected double-digit bounce, and given the heavy press coverage of John Edwards joining the ticket.

Right now, believe me, democratic strategists are scratching their heads.

Before the Summer Olympics are over Bush will be back in the lead to stay.
 
75th said:
AAP and Longhorn:

Yes or No...does the president directly effect the economy?
Click to expand...

He clearly can, such as Bush did by calling for tax cuts during his campaign, and then following through by working to get it through Congress. Same with Reagan. Deregulation and reduction of capital gains taxes have a major impact.
 
Longhorn85 said:
He clearly can, such as Bush did by calling for tax cuts during his campaign, and then following through by working to get it through Congress. Same with Reagan. Deregulation and reduction of capital gains taxes have a major impact.
Click to expand...

I wish the search function on this site worked worth a shit because I know you have defended Bush on the economic question many times saying that the President does not have a direct effect. Which I agree with you by the way, I don't think it was all Bush's fault when the economy was in the toilet for much of his term nor do I give him the credit now that things seem to be turning around.
 
Longhorn85 said:
He clearly can, such as Bush did by calling for tax cuts during his campaign, and then following through by working to get it through Congress. Same with Reagan. Deregulation and reduction of capital gains taxes have a major impact.
Click to expand...

Deregulation and capital gains tax reduction help big corporations and the very rich. That has never stimulated growth and sure as hell hasn't created jobs for working people.

Reduction on consumption tax and broad tax relief and incentives for people who earn less than 6 figure incomes is the best way to stimulate consumer confidence, and thus consumtion and thus economic growth.

Give 100 billionaires a big fat tax break in form of capital gains tax reduction and see how much it helps create jobs.

Give 100 million working people the same amount in tax break, broadly based and see the difference.
 
bluepeter said:
I wish the search function on this site worked worth a shit because I know you have defended Bush on the economic question many times saying that the President does not have a direct effect. Which I agree with you by the way, I don't think it was all Bush's fault when the economy was in the toilet for much of his term nor do I give him the credit now that things seem to be turning around.
Click to expand...

I saw you or someone mention that earlier. You may have me confused with another right-winger on here.

If you find that I'd like to see it because my take has always been that when you're in charge you assume responsibility for all that goes right or all that goes wrong. That's what leadership is all about, that's the way we do it in the military.
 
Longhorn85 said:
I saw you or someone mention that earlier. You may have me confused with another right-winger on here.

If you find that I'd like to see it because my take has always been that when you're in charge you assume responsibility for all that goes right or all that goes wrong. That's what leadership is all about, that's the way we do it in the military.
Click to expand...

I agree they should assume responsibility although I think their impact is minimal and you could be right about the confusion. All you right wingers sound the same ;)
 
MAX 300 said:
Give 100 billionaires a big fat tax break in form of capital gains tax reduction and see how much it helps create jobs.

Give 100 million working people the same amount in tax break, broadly based and see the difference.
Click to expand...

This may not be possible because 100 million "working people" probably don't pay as much tax as 100 billionaires. You can't cut taxes that aren't paid.

Oh wait, Clinton did do that with the earned income tax credit.
 
bluepeter said:
I wish the search function on this site worked worth a shit because I know you have defended Bush on the economic question many times saying that the President does not have a direct effect. Which I agree with you by the way, I don't think it was all Bush's fault when the economy was in the toilet for much of his term nor do I give him the credit now that things seem to be turning around.
Click to expand...


Yep. Saying Bush is not responsible for the bad economy that he CREATED, not inherieted. Because a president doesn't exactly affect the economy one way or another.

Yet here he is again saying that Bush is responsible for saving it. Just like a Republican, talking out of both sides of his mouth.
 
Longhorn85 said:
He clearly can, such as Bush did by calling for tax cuts during his campaign, and then following through by working to get it through Congress. Same with Reagan. Deregulation and reduction of capital gains taxes have a major impact.
Click to expand...


If he clearly can, then why do you deny he is responsible for the collapse of the economy in the first place? Hmmm? Don't blame Clinton. The economy was fine under him, so don't try that shit. It was under Bush we went from a surplus to a deficient.

Bush bush bush... Nov 2004. Watch him lose. Again.
 
MAX 300 said:
In your 200 year old election system you have no other choice though. It's either Bush or Kerry, since you are unable to make a preferential vote a vote for Nader or anyone else is really a vote for the candidate you like least.
Click to expand...

It wasn't always between Republicans and Democrats.

Personally, I wish we could go back to the days of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.



Anywho, I wish everyone had to take a mandatory class on economics before being eligible to vote. Listening to people argue over economics solely based on what they've gleaned from newspapers makes me want to repeatedly bang my head against the wall.
 
Longhorn85 said:
What exactly do you think is good about having a surplus? Do you enjoy being overcharged and receiving no change back?
Click to expand...


As opposed to what? Having a defiency and owing more money?
 
AAP said:
As opposed to what? Having a defiency and owing more money?
Click to expand...

Do you know what the difference is between expansionary and contractionary fiscal policy is? And what their respective relationships with the deficit and surplus is?

Bush came into office during the beginning of a recession. To counteract a recession, the government needed to institute expansionary fiscal policy. This could have been done through tax cuts or increases in government spending. Either way, a deficit would be created.

If a Gore was in office, you can bet that he too would have created a deficit. Of course it probably wouldn't have been through tax cuts. No matter what rhetoric a candidate spews about eliminating the deficit while campaigning, when the time comes, they're not going to sit around in office waiting for a recession to take care of itself. It arguably might be the right thing to do, but nobody has done it, and nobody will if they care about their approval ratings.
 
PIGEON-RAT said:
Do you know what the difference is between expansionary and contractionary fiscal policy is? And what their respective relationships with the deficit and surplus is?

Bush came into office during the beginning of a recession. To counteract a recession, the government needed to institute expansionary fiscal policy. This could have been done through tax cuts or increases in government spending. Either way, a deficit would be created.

If a Gore was in office, you can bet that he too would have created a deficit. Of course it probably wouldn't have been through tax cuts. No matter what rhetoric a candidate spews about eliminating the deficit while campaigning, when the time comes, they're not going to sit around in office waiting for a recession to take care of itself. It arguably might be the right thing to do, but nobody has done it, and nobody will if they care about their approval ratings.
Click to expand...
Lets see..................we have a recession every 10 years or so. Nothing new here.

Going from a record surplus to a record deficit...........is record breaking. Meaning that it has never been done before.

The economy was held down because fear was used to keep people and investors scared shitless and OK the destruction of Iraq. Money won.

The economy is fueled by confidence..........not fear.
 
And no one had confidence in Bush's business plan... simply because he didn't have one.
 
Testosterone boy said:
Lets see..................we have a recession every 10 years or so. Nothing new here.

Going from a record surplus to a record deficit...........is record breaking. Meaning that it has never been done before.

The economy was held down because fear was used to keep people and investors scared shitless and OK the destruction of Iraq. Money won.

The economy is fueled by confidence..........not fear.
Click to expand...

Records can easily be set when our GDP is larger than ever.

The rest of your comment has nothing to do with what I posted. I'm not defending the war. Or even Bush for that matter.
 
PIGEON-RAT said:
Records can easily be set when our GDP is larger than ever.

The rest of your comment has nothing to do with what I posted. I'm not defending the war. Or even Bush for that matter.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to trade deficits?

I am talking about the budget deficit looming like the grim reaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ceo
NCAAF 8/31 - (1)Alabama v Virginia Tech
Replies
0
Views
731
ceo
ceo
L
Bachmann PWNT again
Replies
9
Views
1K
miplank
M
Mr. dB
Pay down the debt? We'll just pray down the debt:
Replies
98
Views
16K
cindylou
C
J
Interesting Story
Replies
17
Views
2K
jerseyrugger76
J
javaguru
Lessons from the Depresion of 1920-1921
Replies
39
Views
7K
ledhead
ledhead
Top Bottom