A huge difference between the Tea Party and the Dems today

LadyJazzer wrote: 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.

Ah but you are forgetting the 'or saved' phrase that obama made up. When you add that in, Bush 'created or saved' over 25 million jobs. More than Clinton. Isn't this fun. just like Obama we can make up numbers and not have to prove it.

And....... rofllol ..........Clinton created the dot com boom? Are you that naive??? He didn't 'create' 23.1 million jobs. They were artificially created with the dot come boom. He did nothing to 'create' jobs. No bills at all to help the economy other than welfare reform. Look at his record. Then as he was leaving that dot com boom was crashing and all this jobs with no products were disappearing faster than anyone could imagine. Bush stopped that with his tax cuts. So Bush 'saved' all those jobs that Clinton didn't 'create' but keeps getting credit for from the left, just because the internet hit big while he was in office and everything became artificially inflated. Clinton wasted those 8 years and what he could have done to save those dot com jobs and what he could have done with all that surplus to help the country. Instead he sat on his ego and let it start wasting away for the next President.

He did not just sit and do nothing, he worked on not having sex with that woman!!!! Get your facts straight!! rofllol

Created! Saved! One can be verified, the other can't.

Gee, is there a difference between the Tea Part and the Dems? Duh!!!

THE TEA BAGGERS ARE COMING, THE TEA BAGGERS ARE COMING!

---

43 Days to Decide: Dems Pumping Up Tea Party Fear Factor as Movement Surges

Published September 20, 2010

| FoxNews.com


AP



The White House is pushing back on a report that President Obama's advisers are contemplating an all-out ad war to discredit Republicans by way of the Tea Party. But with the primaries now behind them, top Democratic officials have already made the Tea Party fear factor an integral part of their messaging.

Amid mounting predictions that Democrats could lose at least one chamber of Congress, a rhetorical campaign has been underway for weeks to cast the Republican Party as driven by the "extremist" faction of its conservative wing.

Warnings about the direction of the GOP got louder after dark-horse candidate Christine O'Donnell beat moderate Rep. Mike Castle for the Delaware Senate nomination last week and conservative Joe Miller beat incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska primary -- prompting Murkowski to launch a write-in campaign.

The New York Times reported Monday that Obama's advisers are considering whether to launch an ad campaign nationwide to portray the Tea Partiers as the new leaders of the Republican Party.

A senior White House official told Fox News the claim simply is not true, and Obama, attending an economic forum, said Monday that the "healthy skepticism" in government exhibited by Tea Partiers is a good thing.

Read more here.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09 ... mary-wins/

The Viking wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: 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.

Ah but you are forgetting the 'or saved' phrase that obama made up. When you add that in, Bush 'created or saved' over 25 million jobs. More than Clinton. Isn't this fun. just like Obama we can make up numbers and not have to prove it.

I didn't say anything about Obama... You did... I mentioned Bush & Clinton. If you want to start your own thread about Obama feel free to do so.

The Viking wrote: And....... rofllol ..........Clinton created the dot com boom? Are you that naive??? He didn't 'create' 23.1 million jobs.

I didn't say anything about "dot-com boom"--You did. I love it when you have a conversation all by yourself, and I didn't even participate in it.

Clinton DID create 23.1 million jobs... The WSJ's numbers prove it... And Bush only created 3 million jobs, and the WSJ's numbers prove that. If you want to argue that somehow the WSJ's numbers don't come out the way you want them to, I suggest you take it up with the WSJ. I could care less, because now you're just going back into foaming-at-the-mouth mode, and I'm not interested.

LadyJazzer wrote:

The Viking wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: 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.

Ah but you are forgetting the 'or saved' phrase that obama made up. When you add that in, Bush 'created or saved' over 25 million jobs. More than Clinton. Isn't this fun. just like Obama we can make up numbers and not have to prove it.

I didn't say anything about Obama... You did... I mentioned Bush & Clinton. If you want to start your own thread about Obama feel free to do so.

The Viking wrote: And....... rofllol ..........Clinton created the dot com boom? Are you that naive??? He didn't 'create' 23.1 million jobs.

I didn't say anything about "dot-com boom"--You did. I love it when you have a conversation all by yourself, and I didn't even participate in it.

Clinton DID create 23.1 million jobs... The WSJ's numbers prove it... And Bush only created 3 million jobs, and the WSJ's numbers prove that. If you want to argue that somehow the WSJ's numbers don't come out the way you want them to, I suggest you take it up with the WSJ. I could care less, because now you're just going back into foaming-at-the-mouth mode, and I'm not interested.

Stop being so clueless and trying to avoid the facts. Tell me HOW did Clinton CREATE 23 million jobs? What did he pass that Created the dot com boom which is where the majority of CREATED jobs came from and then disappeared as he was leaving office. Why don't you like to answer questions or talk facts? Because you know you are wrong and Clinton in no way CREATED 23 million jobs? Game......set.........match........ Thanks for playing. you can pick up your consolation prize at the door.

Sorry the numbers don't come out the way you want them...

Game....Set....Match yourself...

:Snooze

LadyJazzer wrote: Sorry the numbers don't come out the way you want them...

Game....Set....Match yourself...

:Snooze

Another non answer to a traight forward question. Thanks for proving my point.

Tell you what. You want to play with numbers. Let's go your way. The Republicans had control of both the house and Senate from 1994 -2006 Those were some of the most prosperous years. So out of 12 years, even with 9/11 in there we had job growth for almost every month other than part of 2001 and part of 2002 with the 9/11 attack when the Republicans were in control and creating all the bills. There was job growth for 5 straight years from part of 2002 till the begining of 2007. Then what happened? The Democrats took over both houses. What have we had since they started writing all the bills and laws? One of the deepest recessions in history that has gone on for the 4 years they have been in control. The dems have been in charge for all the bad years we have had. The presidents don't write the bills FYI. Congress does, and when the Republicans were in control from 94-2006 even with 9//11 we had some of the strongest years in recent history. Until we let the Dems take over congress and write the bills again.

Sorry the numbers don't come out the way you want them...

They aren't "MY" numbers... They're the WSJ's numbers. (You know....That "bastion of liberal thought.") I was asked to provide a credible source for the numbers, and I did. I could care less about debating whether they're accurate--(they are)--or how they were arrived at, or the theory behind them, ad nauseum.

Why don't you drop a line to the WSJ and give them your thoughts on the matter? I'm SURE they would be interested in hearing your input on how they arrived at their numbers...

I, on the hand, don't give a rat's patoot....

LadyJazzer wrote: They aren't "MY" numbers... They're the WSJ's numbers. (You know....That "bastion of liberal thought.") I was asked to provide a credible source for the numbers, and I did. I could care less about debating whether they're accurate--(they are)--or how they were arrived at, or the theory behind them, ad nauseum.

Why don't you drop a line to the WSJ and give them your thoughts on the matter? I'm SURE they would be interested in hearing your input on how they arrived at their numbers...

I, on the hand, don't give a rat's patoot....

OK, then you must agree that the Republicans who were in charge for the majority of Clintons terms and wrote all the spending bills and budgets, are the reason that our economy was so strong. Hey the WSJ confirms it right? :thumbsup:

outdoor338 wrote: wayne, bennet made it very clear he didn't want obama near him...obama is toxic..l

Hey Outdoor, wanna guess who is coming to Colorado, at Bennett's request, to campaign for him?