I'd like to see this one explained

in November of 2006, American voters kicked the Republicans out of control of Congress and elected Democrats promising change. The unemployment rate was 4.5%

In November of 2008, American voters elected the Democrat to the White House who had been promising hope and change. The unemployment rate was 6.7%.

Now, after spending a ludicrous amount of money in "stimulus," the unemployment rate is 9.5%.

American voters are presently experiencing a "natural consequence" for poor judgement.

Are we to presume that the unemployment rate is directly tied to whichever party controls Congress and the White House- and to what Congress and the White House do?

I don't know what we're should presume but I do know that Barrack Obama and Democrats USED the economic conditions as justification for a pork spending bill that did nothing in terms of job creation or recovery and rewarded every Obama supporter coming down the pike and now all Americans are stuck with the bill.

So why is it that the media and public crucifies one President for doing what he was authorized by BOTH parties to do while another one gets a free pass for true fear mongering and what should be criminal spending?

The "media" is owned mostly by rich white guys who do not have much natural political affinity for a trillion dollar defecit spending black Democratic president and his enabling Democratic cohorts in Congress.

If things continue getting worse- and it appears that they will- I do not think that Obama will get a "free pass".

ziggy wrote:The "media" is owned mostly by rich white guys who do not have much natural political affinity for a trillion dollar defecit spending black Democratic president and his enabling Democratic cohorts in Congress.

If things continue getting worse- and it appears that they will- I do not think that Obama will get a "free pass".

Allow me to correct your statement. The media is owned by silver spoons who have never really had to work for anything. That is obvious their support for the leftist, socialist agenda. Only people who have never really had to work for anything are or support the leftist, Maxist, socialistic agenda. A rich white guy who had worked for all that he had achieved would not support the black marxist we presently have in office.

ziggy wrote:Are we to presume that the unemployment rate is directly tied to whichever party controls Congress and the White House- and to what Congress and the White House do?

If we are not, then the Democrats' whole raison d'etre is called into question.

ziggy wrote:If things continue getting worse- and it appears that they will- I do not think that Obama will get a "free pass".

Yeah, we know, you defend all his socialist actions but you never voted for him.

.

I neither voted for him, nor do I defend him. He sets everything I believe about budgets and fiscal sanity on its head.

What about his views on socialism and government control of private industry? Does his steering of America in that direction go against your beliefs as well?

Aaron wrote:What about his views on socialism and government control of private industry? Does his steering of America in that direction go against your beliefs as well?

HA, he knew very well that was what I was referring to.

Aaron wrote:What about his views on socialism and government control of private industry? Does his steering of America in that direction go against your beliefs as well?

Yes. Reasonable government regulation of industry is one thing- and which I do favor. We can and do argue forever about what is "reasonable" regulation. But government ownership of primary industries is quite another- and which I strongly disfavor.

Reasonable isn't the government telling a company who, what, when, where, why and how, which is, IMHO, what you seem to favor from the bulk of your post. And I don't see much difference between taht and what is going on at GM and Chrysler.