"Had Enough?"

[BushArizona]

Not everything will be like 2006 and 2008 forever.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Not everything will be like 2006 and 2008 forever.

Don't you mean 2004? 

[N.i.K.]

Not everything will be like 2006 and 2008 forever.

How did I know you were going to say that?

[pbrower2a]

I agree the economy won't be recovered by then; as such, we are likely in for a less-than-stellar election.  (thankfully, the economy will probably recover by 2012, and with the typical "are you better off than you were four years ago?" argument, Obama should be re-elected fairly comfortably)

Many are now saying that the economy will not be back to normal until 2015.

The longest continuing downturn in American history was "only" three and one-half years -- Autumn 1929 - Spring 1933. The one that we now endure has lasted about a year and a half. We may have further to go, but this time the leadership addresses the downturn on the brink of a depression. The upturn begins within a year. 

"Many" are often wrong, and without attribution one has a fallacy of anonymous authority.

Names, please.

[Mr.Phips]

I agree the economy won't be recovered by then; as such, we are likely in for a less-than-stellar election.  (thankfully, the economy will probably recover by 2012, and with the typical "are you better off than you were four years ago?" argument, Obama should be re-elected fairly comfortably)

Many are now saying that the economy will not be back to normal until 2015.

The longest continuing downturn in American history was "only" three and one-half years -- Autumn 1929 - Spring 1933. The one that we now endure has lasted about a year and a half. We may have further to go, but this time the leadership addresses the downturn on the brink of a depression. The upturn begins within a year. 

"Many" are often wrong, and without attribution one has a fallacy of anonymous authority.

Names, please.

Suze Orman was one.  Another was Paul Krugman.  Even though the downturn was staunched in Spring 1933, it still felt like a Depression until the early 1940's. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Suze Orman was one.  Another was Paul Krugman.  Even though the downturn was staunched in Spring 1933, it still felt like a Depression until the early 1940's. 

The number of jobs in this country had already increased 34% during FDR's first two terms. True, it was only an increase of 7% over the pre-Hoover numbers, but there was only an increase of 1.6% during the Bush administration, so we don't exactly compare well there.

[Reaganfan]

Uh..."Had Enough?" is what the GOP will use and people would be more likely to understand why they'd be using it.

It depends on how things go, but I'm generally in agreement with you. I'm not sure how the Dems can say "had enough" when they're the ones in power.

Of course, Republicans can't use "Had enough?" if things are improving. But we'll see.

Exactamundo

[Coburn In 2012]

It will be the GOP theme.  And it will work.  Because people will have had their fill of welfare/nanny state socialism by then.  And if not by 201o then certainly by 2012.

[pbrower2a]

It will be the GOP theme.  And it will work.  Because people will have had their fill of welfare/nanny state socialism by then.  And if not by 2010 then certainly by 2012.

If things are better in 2012 than they are now, then people won't give a d@mn about the deficits and big spending that got them there. Most people would rather make a living off the welfare state than starve in the street. Merchants who accept food stamps/TANF and medical professionals who treat Medicaid patients will support the "nanny state". Employees of contractors doing big government projects don't care that the money ultimately comes from government grants.

People won't accept cold, hunger, and idleness as proof of some virtue of a government that might do otherwise -- not even in Oklahoma.

 

[Coburn In 2012]

It will be the GOP theme.  And it will work.  Because people will have had their fill of welfare/nanny state socialism by then.  And if not by 2010 then certainly by 2012.

If things are better in 2012 than they are now, then people won't give a d@mn about the deficits and big spending that got them there. Most people would rather make a living off the welfare state than starve in the street. Merchants who accept food stamps/TANF and medical professionals who treat Medicaid patients will support the "nanny state". Employees of contractors doing big government projects don't care that the money ultimately comes from government grants.

People won't accept cold, hunger, and idleness as proof of some virtue of a government that might do otherwise -- not even in Oklahoma.

 

Idleness is the democrat party's stock in trade.  "WHERE'S MY WELFARE CHECK???  I NEED TO BUY CIGS!!!!!"

[Stranger in a strange land]

guys, the free market failed. Big time. Most people I think know that. Campaigning against big government won't work as well as it did 5 or 10 years ago. This is 1932, not 1980.

Remember that FDR was wildly popular throughout the country in the worst years of the Great Depression because 1) people knew the Depression wasn't his fault, 2) they knew he was doing his best to make things better, and 3) the Republicans had no credibility left. At one point there were 16 Republican senators. It wasn't until 1968, or perhaps 1980, that Lazziez Fair economics made a comeback and America was again willing to elect a Conservative Republican president.

Idleness is the democrat party's stock in trade.  "WHERE'S MY WELFARE CHECK???  I NEED TO BUY CIGS!!!!!"

rhetoric like this is insulting. I know many people who are trying to find jobs but can't because of the economic situation. Assuming such people are lazy, labeling them, and attacking them, is equivalent to liberals in the Bush years who called his supporters "hicks" who lived in "flyover country."

[Lunar]

i don't think he's real dude

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

"Exterminate the Republican Party, once and for all"

That sounds like a good campaign theme to me.

[Stranger in a strange land]

i don't think he's real dude

go read some of the posts on Free Republic.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

"Exterminate the Republican Party, once and for all"

That sounds like a good campaign theme to me.

I know that you meant it jokingly (I think), but people would see that as desiring a one-party system, and that will never fly in America.