What do you liberals have to say about this statement?

Democrats were not in power long enough to tank the economy. The damage to our economy had already been wrought by the time Democrats were elected in 2006. The fact the economy was already starting to come apart was part of the reason why Democrats were elected in 2006.

But now when there is bad news about the economy while Obama is the president, they are quick to point out the Republican majority in the House - forgetting that Democrats still have a majority in the Senate and they control the White House, so the House can accomplish very little on its own.

Liberals are so clearly partisan that no objective person can take them seriously.

what republicans fail to remember is the current congress has only passed 13 bills and there term is almost over. and the last congress passed 300 and something bills. the lowest ever. yet we avoided another great depression. that was only a great recession. or that more people have been on welfare in the last forty years. there are people with two jobs that qualify for welfare. because corporations don't pay hardly anything. benefits are a thing of the past. even though most companies have seen record profits. without record profits forty years ago. people made more per hour than we do now. with the cost of living much lower than it is now and benefits were alive and well. and tax breaks given to the rich ten years ago was meant as a supposed trickle down. not permanent. of course the rich stock piled money. instead of doing what they were supposed to do. now we have billionaires ever where. whats the purpose of having so much money that you wont ever spend it in your life time. greed.

You make some good points..

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan

The problems we face today are because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

A democracy will continue to exist up until

the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous

gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority

always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from

the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally

collapse over loose fiscal policy

@

That's a lie.

George W. Bush took office in 2001. The Republicans had a 221 seat majority in the Senate, and the House was evenly divided. The 2003 election left he Republicans with majorities in both houses.

Your lies are pathetic.

He had a budget surplus. It was a plan surplus not a real one.

The debt grew every year under Clinton. It never went down. There was an actual deficit every year.

The total return on Obama's 7 tillion over almost 5 years was 2 trillion. He spent 7 to make 2.

Does that spell failure? A negative 350% return.

Explain the economic turnaround that happened in the first 2 years under Obama, when he had democrats in both halves of congress, and the stagnation of the past 2 years with republicans controlling the house.

That surplus was the result of Clinton raiding Social Security.

EDIT: Down-votes? You disagree with the facts?

I didn't vote for either one of them.. Congress controls the purse strings and the president controls the veto pen...

GOP had both Houses from 1994-2006.

GOP POTUS 2001-2008.

2 Unfunded Wars under GOP/GW Bush.

Unfunded Medicare D under GOP/GW Bush.

What's your point?

I missed it...