7 1/2 Years of George Bush

[Fulmar]

Fulmar. If you read on a ways you might have noticed that we basically authenticated the message.

I do agree with you though. Most chain letters are bogus and pumped up with recycled garbage.

That wasn't the point of my post.  People post their email inbox in the O'club a lot more than what it needs to be.  Now if the original poster were to take that email and then go through and verify all the claims with sources as you've guys have done here, I have no problem with that and encourage it.

It bothers me that some people may think that whatever comes in their email inbox may be remotely true without thinking about it.  I believe about 90% of the department I work in is this nieve.

[JAGED]

Now if the original poster were to take that email and then go through and verify all the claims with sources as you've guys have done here, I have no problem with that and encourage it.

This post was meant in jest and as a parrot to SkyJocks many posts, most of which are submitted without research and backup.

Most of this post is true btw...

So there! 

[Animl]

I got this in an email the other day.  Just a little something "to get the debate going!"       


George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years.  The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:
  1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high
  2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon
  3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%
  4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
  5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
 
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'!  So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
  1) Consumer confidence has plummeted
  2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!
  3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase)
  4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping
  5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
  6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low... $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
                 
Yes, in 2006 America Voted for change... and we sure got it!

Remember, the President has no control over any of these issues, only congress, and what has congress done in the last two year? Absolutely nothing!

Now, the Democratic candidate for President claims he is going to really give us change along with a Democratic congress!


JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

Excuse me, but even as bad as this congress is, they already did more in the last two years then the Rep congress did in 6 years under bush. The last congress is also the ones that passed everything Bush wanted that hurt this country and got us where we are now. It's the last congress that did all the damage.

Better to not make decisions that are bad then to make decisions that are bad.

You can blame it all you want on this congress, it the Rep congress who did all the damage, like it or not.

[SkyRock]

And again, not so...

http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html

Read 'em and weep! 

nope, march of '07 dow jones below 12,000   lie!   

[SkyRock]

Not so.

Again,  from the US Department of  Labor.

Here is the link:  http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

he quoted 4.5, I checked and it was 4.6 in 2007, therefore a lie.

[JAGED]

nope, march of '07 dow jones below 12,000

Hey buddy! Long time no troll... 

Don't ignore October 2007! 

[Yeager]

it the Rep congress who did all the damage, like it or not.

It Wee Willy did it in 1999.  It all his fault 

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/12/banking.reform/index.html

[SkyRock]

Hey buddy! Long time no troll... 

Don't ignore October 2007! 

re-read the OP, it said  over year ago, that makes it.  lie!   

[avionix]

I can't believe that he is going to quibble over .1%   LMFAO!!!!!!!!

[Yossarian]

Well,
 I can't really blame the Dem controled congress, because they have done nothing. Nothing has been fixed or changed.

Yes but the President can veto any legislation that Congress tries to pass...

Lets see, in 2005, just 3 years ago, I was confident enough in the economy to buy a new truck. I was also able to fill it up with gas for around $40 because it only around $2.00 a gallon. My property value had gone up every year since 1999 when I bought my 1880 square foot house for less than $100,000. All my mutual funds were doing really well, and taking a summer vacation out to Oklahoma and Texas to visit family was no big strain on the finances. My wife had her pick of well paying jobs to choose from.

My life was pretty darn good.

This is your life, and it is entirely possible (/quite likely) that this is an isolated example.  It is not fair/correct to assume that your family and you represent the entire nation.

Our family paid for our overseas vacation without the assistance of loans. No, we were not rich. No, we cannot try the same trip again.

Again, this is quite likely to be an isolated example.

edit:nvm, made a mistake here

[indy007]

Yes but the President can veto any legislation that Congress tries to pass...

 

Not if he wants support passing something later. It's politics, not a dictatorship. Even if you don't have the current majority, there's dozens and dozens of ways to stall, modify, earmark, or even filibuster any type of legislation.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

A President can veto, but a veto can be over ridden by a 2/3 margin.

His life mirrors that of most. It is NOT isolated.

No that is not an isolated example either.

Yes, your math skills suck, especially for a 16 year old who claims to be educated. An increase from 4.5% to 5.5% is actually damned close to a 25% increase. It's easy to figure out, 1% is almost 1/4 of 4.5%, and as such close to 25%.

[Yossarian]

Yes, your math skills suck, especially for a 16 year old who claims to be educated. An increase from 4.5% to 5.5% is actually damned close to a 25% increase. It's easy to figure out, 1% is almost 1/4 of 4.5%, and as such close to 25%.

Yep, point taken, I was thinking about that as a percentage of the entire population, not as a percentage of the previous unemployment figure.  I might argue that it's a bit misleading to present the information that way...but that's off topic and useless, so never mind.

I'm going to edit my previous post to get rid of that maths mistake.

[lazs2]

no skycrock..  the difference between 4.5 and 4.6 is not a lie....a "lie" would be like telling everyone you only averaged 30 hours a month flying cartoon airplanes for the last 6 months when you really did more like 44 hours a month average.

lazs

[JAGED]

re-read the OP, it said  over year ago, that makes it.  lie!   

Ok, how about: Under Bush's watch, the Dow at one point closed over 14,000! Lie?