A huge difference between the Tea Party and the Dems today

You are right on that Wayne. The difference is we won't get into the box. You willingly by every statement you make, prove you are in that box.

The Tea Party may not be a nationally organized, but has Rinos and liberal dems shaking in their boots..watch the attacks on the tea party from the dems this fall with their ads, and wayne your starting already with attacks..just shows how liberal you really are!

Pardon me for questioning the qualifications of a candidate for office.

Wayne Harrison wrote: Pardon me for questioning the qualifications of a candidate for office.

I would take someone totally unqualified over Pelosi or Reid and what they have done to this country the last four years they have been in control, anyday of the week. How can you do worse than creating policies that have driven us into a recession, driven our deficit up faster than ever in history in the last 4 years, taken our enemployment from 5% when they took total control of both houses and all lawmaking up to at or near 10% for over a year now. Forclosures have risen to an all time high since they took over 4 years ago. I think a monkey pushing random buttons could have done better than the policies these so called experienced politicians have done in the last 4 yours.

We almost went into a depression. Instead, we're in a deep recession. Of course the economy stinks.

Wayne Harrison wrote: We almost went into a depression. Instead, we're in a deep recession. Of course the economy stinks.

Then why do you Dems keep voting in the same people? And I love the old Depression line. I am going to use it too. We were headed for a Depression when Clinton left office but Bush's tax cuts gave us one of the shallowest recessions in history. :woo hoo:

Dems keep using the imaginary 'what would have been' and the fictitious 'saved' jobs. Bush's tax cuts 'saved' over 10 million jobs!! Prove it wrong. You Dems make up numbers with no proof whatsoever with that 'saved' jobs line, and it 'coulda been' a depression if not for all of our out of control spending. :bash Are you kidding me? DO you guys think Americans are still buying this? Look at the election on Nov 2nd and I guess we will find out.

Why do Dems keep voting in the same people?

How come you don't ask why Republicans keep voting in the same people?

Clinton handed Bush a balance budget and Bush squandered it. The first mention of "depression" came from Bush as he was in the final months of his term.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention Bush tax cuts saved over 10 million jobs so I can't prove it one way or the other.

As for Nov. 2, don't confuse the anti-incumbency tide with anti-anything else. There are longtime candidates on both sides who will likely lose their jobs. Replacing a longtime politician, who has powerful positions on various committees with a new candidate with no connections and no clout isn't going to magically make the economy turn around. Stopping spending on government projects that employ thousands of people isn't going to, either.

Bush created 3 million jobs in 8 years.

Clinton created 23.1 million jobs in 8 years--and with the pre-Bush tax rates...

Uh-huh... Repeating the phrase "tax-cuts for the top 3 percent = trickle-down jobs" doesn't make it true.

LadyJazzer wrote: Bush created 8 million jobs in 8 years.

Clinton created 22.5 million jobs in 8 years--and with the pre-Bush tax rates...

Do you have a valid source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishm ... mbers.html

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary ... 15.article

blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-...ck-record-on-record/

By: The WSJ Staff:

The chart can be sorted by any of the following categories.

President Jobs created Jobs at end of term Jobs at start of term Payroll expansion Jobs created per year in office Population growth Percent change in population
George W. Bush 3.0 million 135.5 million 132.5 million 2.3% 375,000 22.0 million 7.7%
Bill Clinton 23.1 million 132.5 million 109.4 million 21.1% 2,900,000 25.2 million 8.9%
George H.W. Bush 2.5 million 109.4 million 106.9 million 2.3% 625,000 12.5 million 4.8%
Ronald Reagan 16.0 million 106.9 million 90.9 million 17.6% 2,000,000 17.3 million 7%

Ooooo... From that "liberal rag", the Wall Street Journal!

(I had to edit my original statement since Bush's actual number was 5-million less, and Clinton's was 600,000 more...)