Sure, President Bill Clinton may have lied about a blow job, but at least he didn’t fuck the economy.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Worst. President. Ever.
Worst than the worst president imaginable.
Get your free Anti-Republican signs. Print all you want.
RepublicansAreADisease.com
They Read:
“Republicans Are A Disease”
“Hang Rove”
“Republicans America’s Worst Enemy”
and many more
Go to http://www.RepublicansAreADisease.com
Another down day for the stock market! More 401(k) financial security wiped out. Is there no end to the calamity that Republican corruption, mismanagement, and stupidity have visited on the American people?
Of course, if you voted Republican and your mutual fund is now dumping stocks at distress prices to meet redemptions, I don’t feel guilty about buying your former investments for a song.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
History forgotten by the leftwing nuts.
Republicans forced Clinton into a balance budget.
Bush 2 had 911 and the left over of Clinton’s dot com bubble bursting.
These last two years your lefties have ruin our country in Nov. we will prove it suckers.
I remember when I was a kid in the 50’s, the GOP would parade a doddering old Herbert Hoover around, ballyhooing him as some sort of “elder statesman” because he was….well, at least old.
Dear Lord, I hope my grandkids aren’t going to be subjected to such a pathetic display of a dissipated, drooling semi-corpse and told, “This is the great George W. Bush.”
@3
Komo had a great report today, this leftist was going to retire Dec. 2008 he lost his retirement due to this slow down. What a jerk you guys are!
Anyone going to retire in two -three years in the market today are idiots and deserve losing everything.
Look on the bright side, at least he’s doing better than Hoover!
McCain ’08
Like Hoover, only better!
@4 I can’t let it be said that I’m unwilling to help a wing-nut in need.
http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp
@5 Oh, I dunno, Chimp might make an amusing parade float. Especially if he’s picking his nose and ass at the same time.
@6 I’m already retired. My government pension hasn’t gone done at all, except for the Bush Inflation. I’ll get even with you guys for that by buying less stuff from your businesses.
#6. Another example of the lie that is a “compassion conservative”.
@6
You want compassion talk to STEVE.
@4: History forgotten by republican revisionists:
The president has veto power? Clinton proposed a balanced budget. Must hurt to be so wrong and ignorant of how the country truly works. And by the way, the current republican has rung up the largest deficit in history with a republican congress for most of the time. How do you explain that? Easy, unnnecessary wars that create huge deficits. More than 60% of the budget is defense or defense related spending.
@13 Them billionaires are enjoying all their tax cuts though…..
If Bush didn’t do his tax cut nightmares, our national debt would be paid off by now. Betcha forgot that one Republicon…
@11
The bottom line, Patty Murray didn’t tell him to leave the market.
So he continued to watch his retirement drop in value this is LIBERALISM.
Without Republicans you would be helpless to fend for yourselves.
@10
Great stay away please we take care of our own who pay with cash.
The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama’s, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.
I knew he stinks even his kids said that.
@12 “You want compassion talk to STEVE”
Republicans needn’t come to me for compassion. I have no compassion for them.
Heh, Washington State Republican Rep. Richard Curtis was pulled over wearing a dress after having stiffed his male prostitute back at the motel.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/nwh.....gop_l.html
This has been another edition of “Puddy’s Heroes”.
America,
Stop giving money to the U.N.
Stop sending Billions to South America and Europe.
Demand Russian sends up money.
19 Yeah…let’s threaten to blow the Rooskies to smithereens if they don’t pay up.
The level of inanity of the trolls’ (or is it the troll’s) postings seems to be increasing in direct proportion to the decline in the stock market times the square of the frequency with which McCain makes a public display of fellating his own foot.
Is grade school out? The trolls posting on this thread seem to be even more ignorant than usual. They make multiple factual errors within a single sentence, and display a grade-school mentality.
Republican @ 4: Your revisionist history would be somewhat amusing if it wasn’t so faulty.
First of all, any negative consequences to the DJIA due to 9/11 and the “dot-com bubble” would have been offset by increased government spending under the Homeland Security Act and the war economy relating to the Iraq War in 2003. In fact, the DJIA had almost completely recovered within Bush’s first term, ending only 82 points down from the level when Bush first came into office (a statistically insignificant difference of 0.78%).
But it is during Bush’s second term in office that we see the real combined affects of the Republican Economic Plan, as put into affect by Bush’s tax cut for the wealthy, the “permanant war” in Iraq, careless no-bid contracts with politically connected companies, unbridled deregulation, etc. Now the stock market is down 1,247.45 from the start of Bush’s SECOND TERM, a loss of 11.87%. There’s no way to blame those losses on Clinton (who gave Bush a budget with an actual surplus), 9/11, or the dot-com crash.) These losses can be laid squarely at the feat of the Republican Economic Plan, and all its’ proponants (including Bush and McCain).
And no, a slim Democratic majority of one vote in the Senate (two Senators are out on medical leave, including Kennedy), doesn’t give the Democrats any blame for the current situation. The facts show that every Democratic proposal of consequence was subjet to Republican fillibuster or threat thereof, as well as a veto or threatened veto by Bush.
Besides, responsiblity for oversight of financial institutions resides first in the administrative branch, not the Congress, through the Treasury Dept.
By the way, reports today say that one in six American homes are “underwater” – the homeowners owe more on their homes than they are worth. It didn’t start out that way for almost all of them, but deflation in home values since they purchased the home have erased their equity.
Whether they can keep their homes depends upon their particular circumstances. If they have a traditional fixed-rate mortgage, and they don’t need to move soon, they can just ride it out until home values appreciate again.
But if they have to move for reasons beyond their control (job relocation or change, unemployment, divorce or death in the family, etc., getting called up for military service), then it becomes a big problem. They can’t sell or re-finance without paying off the excess mortgage amount, and impossibility for most. Despite their best efforts to plan, purchase a house within their ability to pay, and to make sure they made a reasonable down-payment, they are still in a bad fix, through no fault of their own.
Others are subjet to “exploding mortgages” – loans made under APRs which have re-set to impossibly high interest rates (some 12% or more), and some have loans with balloon payments requiring the entire loan to be re-financed, typically two years after the loan was first issued. For them, there is no solution except default and foreclosure. Re-financing isn’t available for a property where the mortgage amount exceeds the value of the property.
McCain’s idea in the debate – to buy up the mortgages that were underwater – wasn’t necessarily a bad one. After all, Obama suggested it over two weeks ago, and it was Senate Democrats who inserted the provision in the bailout plan which made it possible to use the money for that purpose. But it really needed to be done over a year ago, before it became a crisis, when there were far fewer homes being affected, and the amounts involved were considerably smaller.
Instead, Bush proposed a half-baked plan to encourage the lenders to voluntarily lower their interest rates for homes which were already in foreclosure, but to do nothing for homes that weren’t yet in foreclosure. Bush’s plan was laughable. And it was just one more instance of an opportunity lost by the Bush administration to avert this crisis before it got to this point.
Now experts are very skeptical that the 700 billion bailout package would be anywhere near enough to implement the plan.
I don’t have any idea whether the members of Congress were aware in their deliberations last week that courts in several states had ordered the new owners of Countrywide to re-negotiate the mortgages of large numbers of customers.
I will give Hoover some credit, however. He’s not as bad as Bush in several areas.
For one, Hoover really was compassionate to the needs of the starving. He helped put together food relief programs for the war refugees in Europe following WWI, and was called upon for the same purpose by Truman after WWII.
Secondly, he did believe in investment in the infrastructure of the U.S., and the role of the federal government in that process. At a time when many politicians of both parties insisted that such projects should be left entirely to the states or private enterprise, he oversaw the start of massive water projects (it’s not named Hoover Dam just as a sap to a politician).
But when the stock market crashed and the depression hit, he was left with his Republican bias against federal spending (even during a Depression), against minimal government involvement in economic affairs, and resorting to the old remedies of tax cuts to spur the economy. It was too little, far too late, and he insisted on continuing with the same old remedies in the hope they would eventually take hold long after he should have abandoned them.
Tax cuts and spending reductions (which John McCain also prescribes for today’s economic ills) doesn’t do anything to spur economic development if everybody is losing money. A tax cut from 15% to 10% of nothing is still zero, and cutting the rate even lower isn’t going to change that math.
Art @ 24: Imagine how much smaller the current crisis would have been if the Federal Government had stepped in much earlier to use it’s regulatory powers to force Countrywide to re-set it’s mortgages – without taking the time for “re-negotiations”. Instead, we had to wait for a coalition of attorney generals from eleven states to bring a lawsuit and compel a less complete remedy. Yet another opportunity lost by the Bush administration’s failure to exercise it’s oversite responsibilities.
So we have to ask why the Bush admninistration dithered for so long on this issue, taking only a half-hearted ineffective measure to combat the problem.
Well the first possibility is that the people who were profiting from the sub-prime loans and the associated boom in the real estate market were close to Bush and his administration and they convinced him to do nothing.
Their “closeness” may have been nothing more than membership in the “old boy” network of priviledge, in which it’s members re-assure themselves that what is in their best interest is also in the best interests of the American people.
It could also be that they were considerably closer than that, in that industry insiders were entrenched within the Republican leadership at many levels – in offices at the Treasury Dept., in the McCain campaign, in the form of campaign donations, etc.
But I really don’t think Bush needed much coercion on this one. Bush is fundamentally a fellow who, as one pundit put it, a person who was born on third base and thinks he got there on a triple. He believes that responsible people just don’t get themselves into that kind of trouble. That means that the homeowners who had sub-prime or exploding loans or had loans which were underwater for any variety of reasons MUST, preforce, be irresponsible. This was probably reinforced at various lunches and social functions where the heads of the various mortgage companies and investment banks would sigh, and complain about how these “irresponsible homeowners who bought homes they couldnt’ afford” were unfairly blaming them for their own mistakes, and Bush would nod in agreement.
It’s a basic failure to understand the difference between his economic situation and those of people who really struggle. I’m sure that Bush’s father made sure his son worked hard, on occassion. It must not have been fun driving around Texas in the summer trying to get property owners to sell their mineral rights when he was in his first oil company.
But it’s a fundamental failure of him to misunderstand his real situation. He was set up in a business (three times) and he had a considerable safety net to assure against failure (which he exercised later – twice). His third business was a sweetheart deal where he received an investment share which he didn’t have to earn himself. His way into politics, like the Texas ANG, was greased by his father’s position and influence. For him, failure was not an option because so many people with a great deal of resources would make sure he DIDN”T fail, despite conduct which would have been fatal to the careers of most of us.
Compare that with the role of the average working family who has to pay for the education of both themselves and their children, both spouses work (sometimes two jobs), have no one from whom they could borrow a down-payment for a house or connections to get a new job or be set up in a business, and the first misfortune threatens to result in complete economic failure and homelessness.
Bush simply doesn’t understand the difference. He takes his mother’s patronizing view that the disadvanged are their due to their own failures, and deserve their own fate. He recognizes the political necessity of at least mouthing concern for their well-being, and a lifeline of some sort which a few “deserving poor” might be able to reach, but that’s as far as it goes.
In the circle of the Bush’s, a poor person shouldn’t be given any extra help unless they first prove that they deserve it, and then only to a limited extent. Otherwise, they assume, the poor will only waste the assistance, and be worse off morally than they were before. The rich, however, are presumed to deserve whatever they have, and it is presumed that whatever they do with the money is for the better good of all. (It’s a very Calvinistic view of God’s blessings, if you follow religious history and philosophy).
Hence, the “trickle down” theory of economics.