Couldn't they do the study with 1,800,000 job losses BEFORE the vote?

[sfpcjock]

Just saying.

[Lindsay]

1. Wouldn't want to influence the political process

or nothin'.

[sfpcjock]

3. Yeah.

:)

[EFerrari]

2. I have a hard time believing anyone in Congress is unaware of unemployment

or what this bill means for job creation.

[Bluebear]

4. You just do not understand the chess game

:crazy:

[Skittles]

5. you just want too many fucking ponies, PT

ADMIT IT!!!

[Bluebear]

8. I'm just the fringe.

[sfpcjock]

7. OK, spill.

I'm game.

[abelenkpe]

6. Probably difficult with all the different plans and chaos

before the vote. But there were many articles and warnings written saying that spending cuts were a bad idea in this economy.

It's the anti-stimulus really. Republicans really just wanted to wipe out any good gained from democratic efforts to revive the economy and jump start the downward spiral of the global economy. Republicans won, we lost. We need to focus on removing conservative dems that vote with republicans and regain the house if we want the government to be able to function for the people at all.

[sfpcjock]

9. I mean, it almost looks like the classic Tenessee man-in-the-middle...

who flipped the 2004 Ohio votes from Kerry +3% to Dubya +3%, if you receive my meaning, i.e., the anticipated losses from near-term cuts almost exactly cancels the current rate of economic growth, and we exactly equal the U.K.. There the new Tory majority actually had some tax increases and they still managed to stagnate job and economic growth for the past three quarters. And, they can't tell us this BEFORE the vote?

Are we, perhaps, so senile that we can't cross compare, or Dems remind Republicans what their heroes Coolidge and Hoover did to the economy, and how they even stagnated FDR's New Deal solutions?