Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.
 
 
 
 

 

« Previous | Next »


FAILED @

x
Share


george w. bush and members of congress

FAILED @ Boosting Our Economy

(George W. Bush and members of Congress)

picture: George W. Bush. lol caption: dunno

» Recaption This

» See All Captions

Incorrect source or offensive?
  • Share on Facebook
  • Copy & paste this:

This funny political picture was posted on Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm.

» 203 comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Authoriest says:
    April 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    Wow. This is really meh. I thought the Bush administration succeeded quite nicely at “boosting” the economy.

    Reply
    • totallyrandomname says:
      April 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm

      Damn u…. >.<

      Reply
    • Faetal says:
      April 1, 2009 at 1:11 pm

      clever wordplay
      nicely done

      Reply
    • The Steve says:
      April 1, 2009 at 1:18 pm

      Hahah…well done!

      Reply
    • eddiepscetti says:
      April 1, 2009 at 1:26 pm

      LOL! And we all know who the ‘fences’ were.

      Reply
    • obvious man says:
      April 1, 2009 at 2:03 pm

      …. so we ddi exactly the same thing, just more so under Obama.

      That will go well.

      Reply
    • obvious man says:
      April 1, 2009 at 2:14 pm

      all things considered, the economy had a pretty good run during the Bush years, considering he was left with the popped dot-com bubble, had very little time to assemble a team (remember : he didn’t “get the keys” to the transition offices ’till mid-December) AND had the country attacked a few months into his term.

      Reply
      • Eric-in-STL says:
        April 1, 2009 at 4:42 pm

        As long you were already rich, yeah, a good deal of the last 8 years were probably great! And if you happen to be an oil company, aye carumba!

        Reply
        • Kim says:
          April 1, 2009 at 5:43 pm

          I’m poor (28,000 a year) and I did very well under his administration, well at least until 2006… My savings account was earning 5% interest during his mid years, and I paid less taxes and got more grant money for school than I ever did with Clinton. Now, my savings account is at 1%, I’m losing my job in August, and can’t seem to find another…But it is not fair to speak for everyone. Everyone is intitled to their own opinion…

          Reply
          • dropulus says:
            April 1, 2009 at 6:06 pm

            Overall, everyone did pretty well the past several years… unemployment was very low for a good long while, for example.

            Reply
            • Eric-in-STL says:
              April 1, 2009 at 7:10 pm

              There’s a difference between “unemployed” and “underemployed.” The underemployed problem really began to grow in the last several years, although I admit I don’t have any numbers right now to back that statement up. I’ll get back to you on that.

              Reply
              • dropulus says:
                April 1, 2009 at 11:51 pm

                I’ve seen “underemployment” trotted out, but never seen any numbers that did real comparisons over time (you can go back on employment, poverty, inflation, etc several decades). BTW, poverty level was at the low end of typical as it’s been in several decades and inflation was low… and following some heavy blows (stock bubble burst, 9/11)

                http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

                Reply
                • PortlandMark says:
                  April 2, 2009 at 6:03 am

                  Here’s a link that applies only for 2000-2004. Middle class wages have been shrinking since Reagan, and the wealthier you started, the faster your income has increased in the same period.

                  Reply
                  • viking gal says:
                    April 2, 2009 at 8:48 am

                    The currently used economic definition of poverty goes back to 1963-64, and assumed that a family spend 1/3 of their budget on food–and also assumes what is now known to be an inadequate-for-nourishment amount of food.
                    (link)

                    Reply
          • anon says:
            April 2, 2009 at 5:40 am

            2006, the year Democrats gained control of Congress. Hmm, I wonder if that’s a coincedence?

            Reply
            • The Steve says:
              April 2, 2009 at 10:09 am

              Yes, blaming a political party is the answer. Because blame solves everything.
              -
              Besides you couldn’t possibly blame the entire government for screwing up, it must be the “enemy” party.

              I agree, Democrats in congress made it difficult for a republican president to get things passed, and that is a jerkwad thing to do. However, one would think that the republicans would have been able to find a middle ground with the democrats where both parties could agree to get done what needed to be done.

              Reply
              • jwd says:
                April 2, 2009 at 12:29 pm

                Why is it always the Republicans that have to find the “middle ground,” anyway?!?

                Reply
                • Susan says:
                  April 2, 2009 at 2:03 pm

                  Amen. Now they are being called obstructionists. Zero asked for a viable alternative to the budget and when he was presented with one, he won’t look at it. Hmmm. Be nice to see some of the pics/captions of him on here….Bush is no longer president, stop beating a dead horse. I’ll bet there could be some amazing captions for the pic of the jackass BOWING to the king of Saudi. Or maybe he was just looking for his brains…they apparently didn’t make the trip.

                  Reply
                  • Eric-in-STL says:
                    April 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm

                    Go for it. If it’s actually funny, maybe it’ll make it. If you’re just being mean for the sake of insulting him, not so likely.

                    Reply
          • PortlandMark says:
            April 2, 2009 at 5:58 am

            You sound like most of Bernie Madoff’s clients- you did well till the Ponzi scheme was discovered.

            Reply
      • Ceefax says:
        April 2, 2009 at 4:02 am

        Yep, everyone had a great time in the Bush economy, playing with big piles of money that didn’t actually exist.

        Reply
        • anon says:
          April 3, 2009 at 6:33 am

          Actually, the “playing with big piles of money that didn’t actually exist” started while Clinton was president.

          Reply
    • BobTheObservant says:
      April 3, 2009 at 6:51 pm

      if by ‘boosting’, you mean ‘running it into the ground’, then yes… he did a fine job at that!

      Reply
  2. totallyrandomname says:
    April 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    LAST!

    Reply
    • AC says:
      April 1, 2009 at 1:15 pm

      Information about the life of Zoroaster derives primarily from the Avesta, that is, from Zoroastrian scripture of which the Gathas – the texts attributed to Zoroaster himself – are a part. These are complemented by legends from the traditional Zoroastrian texts of the ninth to twelfth century.

      The Gathas contain allusions to personal events, such as Zoroaster’s triumph over obstacles imposed by competing priests and the ruling class. They also indicate he had difficulty spreading his teachings, and was even treated with ill-will in his mother’s hometown. They also describe familial events such as the marriage of his daughter, at which Zoroaster presided.

      In the texts of the Younger Avesta (composed many centuries after the Gathas), Zoroaster is depicted wrestling with the daevas and is tempted by Angra Mainyu to renounce his faith (Yasht 17.19; Vendidad 19).

      The Spenta Nask, the thirteenth section of the Avesta, is said to have a description of the prophet’s life. However, this text has been lost over the centuries, and it survives only as a summary in the seventh book of the ninth century Dēnkard. Other ninth to twelfth century stories of Zoroaster, as in the Shāhnāma, are also assumed to be based on earlier texts, but must be considered to be primarily a collection of legends. The historical Zoroaster, however, eludes categorization as a legendary character.

      Reply
  3. Anonymous says:
    April 1, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Authoriest is a moron.

    Reply
  4. anon says:
    April 1, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    The caption is missing an arrow pointing to Nancy Pelosi. Everyone always forgets (intentionally or not) that it is Congress that controls the nations budget, and not the President. Democrats have controlled both houses since 2006 election. Democrats maybe pointing one finger at Bush, but they forget about the other three pointing back at them.

    Reply
    • Cyberbelum says:
      April 1, 2009 at 1:20 pm

      Interesting…and after hearing all the stuff on the news, I thought I was the only one to figure out that the economy didn’t start going downhill until the Democrats took over Congress.

      But don’t worry anon, all the kool-aid drinkers will jump in and attack Bush for their parties mistakes. They’re predictable like that…

      Reply
      • anon says:
        April 1, 2009 at 1:34 pm

        The other thing I really like is how the sub-prime mortgages started all of this problem too. Guess who started the legislation on that and was the majority reason for it passing? The Democrats.

        Reply
        • Realism says:
          April 1, 2009 at 1:48 pm

          Aww, I wanted to guess.

          Reply
        • Grendel says:
          April 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm

          If memory serves….. the president still has to sign laws into effect. Also… if a president vetos something (which bush did a -lot- of when the democrats attempted to pass laws) the congress needs 2/3s majority to override. Now… Democrats “controlled” congress but didn’t have enough to really impact everything. Its was so close to 50/50, that half the time the republicans in congress were enough to stop anything from even making it to W, much less override him when his veto came back.

          And overall, I think Bush was not really a jackass so much for ruining the economy (For that I blame corporate America and the legislation put into place after WWII that made the world safe for coca-cola) but bush is really a jackass for the invasion of Iraq. That -was- Bush’s decision as the “decider” and it was the sustained wars, the growing deficit, and corporate america’s greed that caused this.

          And while we are at it. Lets be honest with ourselves. The Dems and Repubs are wealthy Americans who are CEOs or on the Board of Directors, or Major Stock Holders of many of the major corporations in America today. We are going to be hard pressed to find anyone who can truly seperate themselves enough to do something good for the American laborer.

          For now…. Obama’s about as good as its gonna get. But look on the bright side…. I’ll be coming along shortly.

          Reply
          • Faetal says:
            April 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm

            Grendel 2012!

            Reply
          • pittypat says:
            April 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm

            Your first press release:
            Every nail, claw-scale and spur, every spike
            and welt on the hand of that heathen brute
            was like barbed steel. Everybody said
            there was no honed iron hard enough
            to pierce him through, no time proofed blade
            that could cut his brutal blood caked claw…

            Reply
          • ubr says:
            April 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm

            we can all agree that pretty much every politician currently in the house and senate are corrupt bastards. too bad the only ones who can get elected are by definition corrupt bastards.
            maybe if ethics were more important in our society…

            Reply
          • dropulus says:
            April 1, 2009 at 6:09 pm

            The subprime nonsense was initiated under Clinton; for Bush to have stopped it, Congress would have had to have passed a modification of the program… which he would then need to sign.

            Vetoes don’t enter into it in this case

            Reply
        • badfairie says:
          April 2, 2009 at 1:06 pm

          try again – they were done under reagan, only called adjustable rate mortgages that time and they failed then too because nobody was able to make the balloon payment without a 2nd mortgage. of course this time around there was an interesting clause added to many – i don’t know what it was called but basically you can’t refinance or pay off early, the home owner has to pay the full amount of the mortgage including all projected interest to get out of the loan. i know several people who have had to walk away from their houses because they can’t sell, and their mortgages are non-assumable. plus at least one was written for 40 yrs instead of the customary 30 to bring the payments down to an affordable levell.

          Reply
      • Eric-in-STL says:
        April 1, 2009 at 7:17 pm

        “But don’t worry anon, all the kool-aid drinkers will jump in and attack Bush for their parties mistakes. They’re predictable like that…”

        Mmmm….Kool-Aid. Is it cherry? I like cherry best!!

        Reply
    • The Steve says:
      April 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm

      Liberals hate Pelosi too…at least I do! That counts as bipartisanship right? Any enemy of Pelosi is a friend of mine!

      Reply
    • Forge says:
      April 1, 2009 at 2:43 pm

      You realize you’re saying that about a picture of the President signing a document while sitting at a table behind a sign that says BOOSTING OUR ECONOMY, right? You don’t get to take credit for something and kite when it doesn’t turn out the way your PR staff fluffed it. Doesn’t work that way.

      Reply
    • slan agat says:
      April 1, 2009 at 3:42 pm

      Bull. The economy has been a ticking time bomb ever since the Republican controlled Congress passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) was one of the few who had it right, and he predicted that it would take a trillion-dollar bailout to clean up the mess in ten years’ time. [LINK]

      We should have Byron “Cassandra” Dorgan running the Treasury Department.

      Reply
      • ubr says:
        April 1, 2009 at 6:45 pm

        sorry slan, but i got a bone to pick with you on this one…
        you can’t have it both ways. it’s the congress’s fault when there’s a dem in the white house and the president’s fault when there’s a republican in the white house? if congress is to blame and not clinton then by extension you just vindicated bush.

        Reply
        • Anonymous says:
          April 1, 2009 at 8:03 pm

          That would be true if Bush or any of his people done anything to stop the momentum caused by the bad legislation. IIRC, they were too busy trash talking McCain for stepping up and saying he smelled a rat, despite his party’s affinity for deregulation.

          Gramm-Leach-Bliley undid legislation enacted to prevent exactly what
          we are going through right now. Partisanship aside, it sucked.

          Reply
        • Musicmom870 says:
          April 1, 2009 at 8:14 pm

          Almost every member of congress voted for G_L_B, and it was signed by Clinton. Lots and lots of blame to go around on this one, but maybe we should start paying more attention to the few who got it right.
          From Wiki citations: (about the senate vote)
          “52 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted for the bill. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama (Republican, formerly a Democrat) voted against it, as did 7 Democratic Senators: Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Richard Bryan (Nev.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Russell Feingold (Wisc.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Barbara Mikulski (Md.) and Paul Wellstone (Minn.) Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) again voted “present”, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did not vote.”

          Reply
        • slan agat says:
          April 2, 2009 at 1:29 am

          You would have a fair point, except that under the Bush administration the regulatory powers of the SEC were utterly neutered. Bush appointees were chosen particularly for their hands-off attitude toward the financiers they were supposed to monitor.

          Devil’s in the details, ubr. Congress passes bad laws, and the executive promulgates and enforces (or fails to enforce) bad regulations.

          Reply
      • anon says:
        April 2, 2009 at 6:29 am

        There are some problems with your theory that it was all the Republicans fault on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. First, the Republicans had a very slim majority at the time (55% of the Senate, 51% of the House). When the final vote was taken, the bill would have past the Senate without any Democrats, but 38 Democrats voted for it, along with 52 Republicans. In the House, the bill would have never passed without the Democrats, as only 207 Republicans voted for it (which is 47.5% of the House), but 155 Democrats voted for it as well. After the bill was passed by congress, Bill Clinton could have vetoed it, but the majority of Democrats (including Bill Clinton), thought the bill was just as good as the Republicans did.

        Reply
    • Paul says:
      April 2, 2009 at 4:01 am

      So in your mind, Nancy Pelosi ruined the US economy?

      This would be through her successful efforts to get the Democrats to all stand up to Bush and keep his economic policies from being enacted, huh?

      Don’t believe everything the media tell you, kid.

      Reply
    • PortlandMark says:
      April 2, 2009 at 6:09 am

      So, when the economy burst in 2001/2002, it was because of the Democrats who no longer had control of congress; when we spent like drunken sailors on China’s credit card from 2002-2006, it was an example of fiscally responsible Republican leadership; when thing kept going well until October 2008, it had nothing to do with the Democrats being in charge of congress, but when the bill finally came due, it was all the Democrat’s fault? The first 9 1/2 trillion in debt your team rang up didn’t mean anything at all, but the 1 and 1/2 trillion Obama wants to spend is bad?

      Reply
      • anon says:
        April 6, 2009 at 6:33 am

        One problem with your statement “the first 9 1/2 trillion in debt your team rang up” in the fact that the country had a deficit of 6 trillion before Bush took office. Thats 3.5 trillion over 8 years, or less than 0.5 trillion per year. The deficit ran up during President Obama’s first year will be 2.5 trillion : 1.5 trillion for the budget deficit and 1 trillion for the “bailout” spending (765 billion for the new bailout plan, and 350 billion that he spent from the first bailout that was never spent, all of which is not included in the budget).

        Another problem is the fact that it is Congress that decides the budget, not the President.

        Reply
  5. anonymous says:
    April 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    Did you know that Obama is the president now? Look at how well the economy is doing under his administration! It’s really turned around!

    Reply
    • charro says:
      April 1, 2009 at 2:23 pm

      @@

      Reply
    • Jane St.Clair says:
      April 1, 2009 at 2:43 pm

      I know! I mean, when I voted for him I thought it was understood that he would use his magic superpowers to fix all the problems in the first day and have enough time left over to come to my house and give me a million dollars and a new car that runs on fairy dust and pixie poop. I feel like I’ve been lied to.

      Reply
    • bluejade says:
      April 1, 2009 at 7:50 pm

      The man is a President, not a magician.

      Reply
    • Smartz says:
      April 1, 2009 at 10:53 pm

      It really annoys me how delusional people are these days. The economy is something that can’t be altered over the period of less than 3 months! What we are dealing with are the repercussions of the past few years of companies and banks taking too many risks. Its risky to give loans and credit to people who have a low chance of paying it back, its risky for a company to use large sums of credit, and its risky to flaunt a luxurious lifestyle as a CEO of said companies because it just looks bad (from a personal perspective). We know how bad it can be from the infamous Enron case, as their corruption was soaked to the core. To prevent another Enron, we gotta get to the bottom of this as fast as possible…but that being said, “fast” is a relative term, it sure won’t be in less than 3 months.

      The bailouts were to prevent job loss, so people can have money to spend as to improve the economy! If people don’t have jobs, the economy fails. It a simple glance it may seem very wrong to give money to these companies, but the intent was to help the workers, not the higher-ups, which in the case of AIG, happened because for some reason they had to have their bonuses NOW, even using the bailout money. Even if they are obligated to have that bonus money, I don’t understand why they had to receive it at this time, during the recession, where people who could only wish they had that money as a salary, much less a bonus, could get upset easily…

      Reply
  6. slan agat says:
    April 1, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Not that I seriously think any of you smug conservatives will take the time to read, but here’s a link to an article written by a former IMF official that includes some of the best analysis of how we got into this clusterfvck – and what it’ll really take to get out of it – that you’ll find anywhere.

    The TL;DR of it: The revolving door between Wall St. and Washington is to blame. Both parties, but more so the Republicans as they’ve had more influence in the past 30 years, have taken actions that have all run to the benefit of a self-dealing oligarchy of money men, and the only way to really turn things around is to throw the worst of the Wall St. elite under the bus.

    Reply
  7. Zym says:
    April 1, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    FYI: Bush is not President anymore.

    Reply
    • DeathWyrmNexus says:
      April 1, 2009 at 4:53 pm

      If a dog sh!ts on your floor and then leaves, it is still his shit even if he isn’t there or not your dog anymore.

      Reply
      • V Gard says:
        April 1, 2009 at 5:20 pm

        nice analogy, but it dose not cover up for Obamas total lack of succes at fixing anything.

        Reply
        • Rattus says:
          April 1, 2009 at 6:08 pm

          Fer crissakes, it’s been 2.5 stinking months. And if you learned to spell, people might be more inclined to take you seriously.

          Reply
          • anon says:
            April 2, 2009 at 6:10 am

            Spending over a trillion dollars in less than 3 months (I’ll even give you the fact that not all of that has made it into the market yet) should have fixed some problems. And we will neve know if that money really has an effect, as there is no way to tell if it saved a job or not and at this point it won’t really be creating any jobs either.

            And now the president can fire the CEO of a corporation that the government gives money to. What I don’t understand is why this hasn’t been done at the banks that, which have gotten and lost more of our money than anyone else, or will that be in the next few weeks too?

            Just wait until the American people have to pay that money back with increased taxes across the board.

            Stupidity is the cancer of society, and we are all feeling the adverse affects of that cancer. All of the stupid people that took mortgages that they could never payoff with their current income and the people who gave them those mortgages (the cancer) have caused system wide fallout that is bringing us all down. When we start to pay this money all back, the cancer should be targeted with the highest tax burdens since it is their fault that we are in this mess in the first place.

            Reply
      • likesLSDalot says:
        April 1, 2009 at 5:22 pm

        Wonderful analogy!

        Reply
      • Smartz says:
        April 1, 2009 at 10:32 pm

        Touche, DWN. He left a piece of crap for the economy, the war, the foreign relations…the list goes on and on!

        Reply
      • Zym says:
        April 2, 2009 at 8:19 am

        Sorry. I thought you’d all be happy to know Bush isn’t President anymore.

        Reply
        • Smartz says:
          April 2, 2009 at 11:44 am

          Oh, we are happy. But your comment is implying that it isn’t Bush’s fault that the economy is not failing now, but Obama’s. I know it is getting old to hear, but how can a president of less than 3 months be the cause of years of deregulation of big businesses and lowered taxes of the wealthy causing an economic recession? If we were in such great shape, how come the Bush administration needed loans from China and Japan? And how can you not forget the trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq war? I have said this several times, but instead of increasing taxes to fund the war, the Bush administration decreased them for the groups that would would supply the most. And seeing as the Congress was dominated by the Republicans from 2000-2007 [link], these tax breaks were most likely influenced by them.

          Reply
  8. Teehee says:
    April 1, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    She sure did. And she will continue to fail as long as she’s speaker.

    Reply
  9. V Gard says:
    April 1, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Yes because Obamas plan is working soooo much better.

    Reply
  10. EvilPoliticians says:
    April 1, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    Funny how Pelosi and her fellow Democraps seem rather pleased and full of Hope

    Reply
  11. EvilPoliticians says:
    April 1, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Oh stop the partisan bickering. Both parties are complicit in the bad. They all jumped on the bandwagon knowing it was too good to be true and just hoped it didn’t burst on their watch. For those it did, the power grab is on. Fed intrusion with this debacle will make the the 9/11 intrusions look like child’s play.

    Reply
    • Eric-in-STL says:
      April 1, 2009 at 6:55 pm

      Okay, genius. Got a better idea? I’m not saying Bush or Obama are doing things better, but what’s your plan, pal?

      Reply
      • EvilPoliticians says:
        April 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm

        Plan? Keep telling people to stop being ignorant voters. Get engaged in whatever platform you believe in. Hold those you support accountable. Apathy or resignation that “it’s just the way it is” is despicable.

        Reply
        • Uncle Fester says:
          April 3, 2009 at 5:47 pm

          “it’s just the way it is”

          there are several songs bout that… Bruce Hornsby or RUN DMC… take your pick…

          Reply
  12. Eric-in-STL's troll says:
    April 1, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Stop feading tha trolls, yu moron!!!

    Reply
  13. PeachyKat says:
    April 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    Bush had the power to veto, but vetoes can be overridden by votes of Senate. Therefore, House and Senate have equal power (theoretically). We are not some magic monarchy :) . Pelosi, Clinton and team have also made decisions for the nations. I never truly agreed with Bush and I’ll agree that the WHOLE Republican party helped bring down the country’s infrastructure, but you can’t always blame him as one person.

    I hope Barack Obama and his team will pay more attention to the stem-cell research alternatives that do not use (according to human rights groups) embryonic material. Then the cures can still be advanced and the human rights groups can continue there crusades. I remember when Bush vetoed the Stem Cell research bill…

    Here is a list of bills vetoed by Bush http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/BushGW.htm

    Reply
    • PortlandMark says:
      April 2, 2009 at 7:34 am

      A veto override requires such a large number of votes that it can’t be done without bipartisan support, ie, without a substantial number of congresscritters disagreeing with their party’s president, so your argument doesn’t hold water.

      Reply
      • Jane St.Clair says:
        April 2, 2009 at 3:39 pm

        *sigh* 2/3 majority, to be precise. Democrats had nowhere near that much. They had a slight majority in the House and were almost dead even in the senate, iirc. Some people who obviously failed government class have no business posting on the internet (not you Mark, obviously, but PeachyKat)

        Reply
  14. Wile E Coyote says:
    April 2, 2009 at 8:53 am

    I like how nobody notices the legion of dems behind Bush, that pushed for that stimulus to be signed.

    Reply
  15. Exile says:
    April 2, 2009 at 9:28 am

    How’s old Adolf Hitler Obama doing? Has he nationalized any corporations today?

    Reply
  16. Tessie says:
    April 2, 2009 at 10:52 am

    1. Boosh ruled, just look at that stuffed-crotch flight suit.
    2. Anything that went wrong during Boosh’s reign was the fault of Clinton/the Democrats in Congress/Obama retroactively.
    3. But nothing did go wrong, so there.
    4. Poor people are lazy crooks who want handouts, and megacorporations are humanitarians who would make us all rich and happy if only we cut their taxes enough.
    5. If you think things are bad now, just wait until your messiah Obama takes all our millions and turns us all into a socialist/commie/nazi dictatorship, like he’s already doing except you’re in denial about it.
    `
    There, I just saved us six hundred posts. You’re welcome.

    Reply
  17. rewinn says:
    April 2, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    Uhm, why does the caption say “Failed”?

    It clearly should say “EPIC FAILED!!!”

    Reply
  18. Jojo says:
    April 2, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    Obama will triple our national debt in his 4 years.

    Reply
  19. the man says:
    April 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    right. and every time obama tries to stimulate the economy, it drops like a rock. IT’S CALLED LEARN FROM HISTORY, FOLKS!! it didn’t work when andrew jackson did it (although that wasn’t to stimulate, it just for kicks) and it didn’t work with the new deal and it didn’t work when bush tried it. last time i checked the 4th and 5th times were not the ‘charm’. stupid people in power never cease to amaze me.

    Reply
    • Tessie says:
      April 2, 2009 at 7:11 pm

      “it didn’t work when andrew jackson did it (although that wasn’t to stimulate, it just for kicks”
      `
      I’m amazed he took valuable time away from dueling to do anything else for kicks, but live and learn, I guess.

      Reply
    • 2wellread says:
      April 4, 2009 at 9:03 am

      I concur, though I think Bush was less aggressive about trying things that have failed than Oblahblah is being… “heck, let’s triple the national debt over the next 10 years – since I inherited a bad situation, I may as well make it worse!”

      Reply
  20. burgerofcheez says:
    April 5, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    WAZZ ↑ (UP) WITH BALDY IN THE MIDLE?

    Reply
  21. morecowbell says:
    May 25, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    hey, as long as you blame the last guy, you don’t have to pay attention to the current situation.

    good tactic. morons.

    Reply
  22. JustBecauseYourWrong says:
    November 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Its not Obama has helped. The economy is even worse now after his stupid bill.

    Reply
Go to Top

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Newsletter Sign-up