Obama +6 million jobs vs Bush -600,000 jobs

[Matt1970]

No one is seriously making this argument, nor does it support your theory that the crisis was "bi-partisan". Sorry, it wasn't. One ideology and one party overwhelmingly decided not to put any teeth into securities regs, banking regs and fought tooth and nail against Dodd-Frank, CFPB, Fair Housing, et al. This is a matter of record you wouldn't be able to refute if your life depended on it, and won't here in this thread for the usual lame reasons ("I can't debate with you First!").

You can argue all you want that some lefties were in the pockets of finance, but that doesn't matter a lick compared to the overwhelming majority that weren't. Something has to be quantitatively close for you to call it "bi-partisan", otherwise the word loses all meaning and politicians would call legislation passed with 50 of X Party and 1 of Y Party in the Senate "bi-partisan" (sadly, that's been done). It's not bi-partisan. Sorry to shatter your partisan worldview.

Actually it does but you being the undeniable hack that you are will never be able to see it. You saw the evidence you needed to see to fit your political goal and that was good enough for you. No amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise. Enjoy trying to get a good look at the world with your head up your ass. I am done "debating" you.

 

[shady28]

You know...
We can show graphs, data, stats, etc etc and no republican will ever admit to the obvious. So whats the point?

The real story here is WHAT would have happened under an Mitt Romney administration?

No, the real 'question' is what would have happened if we didn't keep voting Dems and / or Repubs into office. Mitt Romney doesn't matter, neither does Obama. Obama turned out not to represent change, but to just be another cog in the system. Anyone who thinks any Democrat or Republican presidential candidate will not be just another cog at this point is an idiot.

The answer to your question is obvious - since both are cogs, economically the exact same thing would have happened. The Dems injected hundreds of billions into wall street; the republicans would have done the same.

The only variation would be in minor, unimportant details, mostly boiling down to what special interest group would get paid off for their political support by our tax dollars.

 

[First]

Actually it does but you being the undeniable hack that you are will never be able to see it. You saw the evidence you needed to see to fit your political goal and that was good enough for you. No amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise. Enjoy trying to get a good look at the world with your head up your ass. I am done "debating" you.

The sad thing is; the pussy won't man up and link to an aggregate list of those 171 bills and actually stand by that bullshit number.

Link to "general consensus"? K thanks.

It's as if I can predict the future.

lol

 

[Jhhnn]

No, the real 'question' is what would have happened if we didn't keep voting Dems and / or Repubs into office. Mitt Romney doesn't matter, neither does Obama. Obama turned out not to represent change, but to just be another cog in the system. Anyone who thinks any Democrat or Republican presidential candidate will not be just another cog at this point is an idiot.

The answer to your question is obvious - since both are cogs, economically the exact same thing would have happened. The Dems injected hundreds of billions into wall street; the republicans would have done the same.

The only variation would be in minor, unimportant details, mostly boiling down to what special interest group would get paid off for their political support by our tax dollars.

Puh-leeze. There's also the small matter of the social safety net & it's importance in the worst economic catastrophe since 1929.

To which Repubs have replied Cut! Cut! Cut!

There's the small matter of Dodd-Frank & the fact that Repubs have fought it every inch of the way.

There's the small matter of the future & what we the people can do through our govt to keep from getting fucked, again, some way to keep the unfortunately necessary financial shysters in line. I'll give you a hint- "Free Market!" isn't it, never was.

I could go on, but it's pointless. Anybody who resorts to the false equivalency of "They're just as Bad!" is desperate to believe it and defend it, no matter what.