U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:26 PM
 
Location: OC, CA
3,309 posts, read 5,293,495 times
Reputation: 651

Advertisements

I am so sick of this "4 more years" crap. Its not even a valid argument.

First of all, Congress AND Senate are controlled by the Democratic Majority. 2 out of 3 of THE NATIONAL law making agencies are Democrat controlled. So Democrats are just as corrupted in Washington as the Republicans.

And Bush's first 4 years were great years, comparable to those of Clinton. At that time, Congress was controlled by Republicans and the Senate was controlled by the Republicans. When Republicans had control of all 3, this country was prosperous. Unemployment went WAY down (near 4%), wages increased nearly $1,300 average each year during that time (during Clinton it was only $1,100), the price of housing was steadily raising, immigration wasnt out of control, and aside from the war, spending wasnt out of control. And, although inflation was increasing, the price of goods remained unaffected giving people more "spendable money."

Then, the Democrats took over the Senate and Congress. Since then, there has been non stop political bickering. Unemployment has soared to record highs. The median income, although still rising overall, is decreasing among the bottom 20% of society, and not one piece of legislation that has any serious merit has passed in 2008. Spending in ALL departments (not just the war) has been out of control. More states have gone into red after being in the positive during Bush's first term. And Nancy Pelosi, and all her other little Democrat friends have put more blame on everyone else instead of trying to find solutions for the holes the Senate has dug themselves into (although they did approve a pay raise).

So, I ask myself. Is it Bush, who had a relatively successful first term? Or could it be the Congress and Senate which are controlled by Democrats that have fueled the overall downturn of the economy.

Now, dont get me wrong, George Bush is the root of the foreign issues. But I think people are blaming the Republicans for the failures in Washington WAY too much considering the Democrats control almost every national agency and governing body aside from the presidency itself.

I hope you think about that for a minute.

Please, try to respond with intelligence. Things like saying McNut, etc. dont give your posts much merit beyond a whiny 3rd grader.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:28 PM
 
12,643 posts, read 18,964,657 times
Reputation: 3028
Yeah and look at the POOR POOR job they are doing!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:30 PM
 
Location: OC, CA
3,309 posts, read 5,293,495 times
Reputation: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn View Post
Yeah and look at the POOR POOR job they are doing!
I just think that, when you look at the big picture, George Bush was a good president when he had a Republican controlled senate and house or he wouldnt have been re-elected. The downturn really came when the Democrats took over majority in the Senate and House.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:31 PM
 
4,608 posts, read 7,581,054 times
Reputation: 1260
Congress... 535 reasons to support term limits. NEVER vote for an incumbent.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:33 PM
 
12,643 posts, read 18,964,657 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocexpo View Post
I just think that, when you look at the big picture, George Bush was a good president when he had a Republican controlled senate and house or he wouldnt have been re-elected. The downturn really came when the Democrats took over majority in the Senate and House.
Yes it did!

WASHINGTON — Congressional job approval ratings have sunk to their lowest point in three decades, according to the latest Gallup Poll.

A survey of 1,016 adults taken July 10-13 found that 14% approve of the job Congress is doing. That's half President Bush's record low 28% job approval number, and the lowest congressional rating since Gallup first began asking the question in 1974.

Congress ratings plunge in poll - USATODAY.com
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:40 PM
 
69 posts, read 125,245 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocexpo View Post
I am so sick of this "4 more years" crap. Its not even a valid argument.

First of all, Congress AND Senate are controlled by the Democratic Majority. 2 out of 3 of THE NATIONAL law making agencies are Democrat controlled. So Democrats are just as corrupted in Washington as the Republicans.

And Bush's first 4 years were great years, comparable to those of Clinton. At that time, Congress was controlled by Republicans and the Senate was controlled by the Republicans. When Republicans had control of all 3, this country was prosperous. Unemployment went WAY down (near 4%), wages increased nearly $1,300 average each year during that time (during Clinton it was only $1,100), the price of housing was steadily raising, immigration wasnt out of control, and aside from the war, spending wasnt out of control. And, although inflation was increasing, the price of goods remained unaffected giving people more "spendable money."

Then, the Democrats took over the Senate and Congress. Since then, there has been non stop political bickering. Unemployment has soared to record highs. The median income, although still rising overall, is decreasing among the bottom 20% of society, and not one piece of legislation that has any serious merit has passed in 2008. Spending in ALL departments (not just the war) has been out of control. More states have gone into red after being in the positive during Bush's first term. And Nancy Pelosi, and all her other little Democrat friends have put more blame on everyone else instead of trying to find solutions for the holes the Senate has dug themselves into (although they did approve a pay raise).

So, I ask myself. Is it Bush, who had a relatively successful first term? Or could it be the Congress and Senate which are controlled by Democrats that have fueled the overall downturn of the economy.

Now, dont get me wrong, George Bush is the root of the foreign issues. But I think people are blaming the Republicans for the failures in Washington WAY too much considering the Democrats control almost every national agency and governing body aside from the presidency itself.

I hope you think about that for a minute.

Please, try to respond with intelligence. Things like saying McNut, etc. dont give your posts much merit beyond a whiny 3rd grader.
Bravo!!! I only found this site a couple of weeks ago, but have been reading it constantly since. I wondered why no one was saying this.

You hit it right on the head. Of course, I know you are going to get some whiny nasty responses. But that is all they can say since they cant respond with facts and intelligence.

Maybe we need to send you to Washington.......
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:45 PM
 
Location: OC, CA
3,309 posts, read 5,293,495 times
Reputation: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkemery View Post
Bravo!!! I only found this site a couple of weeks ago, but have been reading it constantly since. I wondered why no one was saying this.

You hit it right on the head. Of course, I know you are going to get some whiny nasty responses. But that is all they can say since they cant respond with facts and intelligence.

Maybe we need to send you to Washington.......
I know. They make me smile. Its just a sign of desperation.

When I lived in MA, I would have been shot for saying this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:50 PM
 
Location: exit 0
4,813 posts, read 3,398,521 times
Reputation: 6209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn View Post
Yes it did!

WASHINGTON — Congressional job approval ratings have sunk to their lowest point in three decades, according to the latest Gallup Poll.

A survey of 1,016 adults taken July 10-13 found that 14% approve of the job Congress is doing. That's half President Bush's record low 28% job approval number, and the lowest congressional rating since Gallup first began asking the question in 1974.

Congress ratings plunge in poll - USATODAY.com
This is one of the major reasons that I fear an Obama presidency. Democrats will have total control! They'll have the House, the Senate and the Executive branch. I'd feel exactly the same way about a totally republican run government. We need checks and balances.

The last time we had a democrat for a president and democrat majority in the House and the Senate was under Jimmy Carter and we all know how well that went.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:51 PM
 
2,896 posts, read 6,212,427 times
Reputation: 5035
I thought it was very telling when the Reid/Pelosi controlled Congress actually dipped into the single digit (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance - broken link) approval rating basement again and yet these clowns get a free ride from the MSM. I'm still wondering who the idiots were that actually thought they were doing a good job
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2008, 11:52 PM
 
3,255 posts, read 4,727,099 times
Reputation: 547
We do not have a filibuster proof majority. This is the same argument the Republicans had when they were in the majority but not a filibuster proof one. Don't you remember when the Republicans were threatening to change the rules to ban filibusters?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top