- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Why? Do you hate Bush that much?
Do you think the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats or George W. Bush and the Republicans are more responsible for the country's current economic problems?
CNN/ORC, September 23-25, 1,010 adults, MoE+/-3
- Obama and Democrats: 32%
- Bush and Republicans: 52%
- Both equally (vol.): 13%
I don't know what you're talking about, I never said we gained jobs since Obama became president. What I have said is there isn't a Republican president since Calvin Cooledge who hasn't lost jobs during their first 32 months in office and Obama is the firsat Democrat to lose jobs in his first 32 months in office, yet you continue to support the Republican party while complaining about jobs. :roll:
Nixon +77% Bush +45% Eisenhower +41% Ford* +36% GHW Bush +28% Reagan +23% Obama +17% Kennedy -17% Carter -21% Clinton -23% Johnson -33%
* = Ford was in office 29 months
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
That's odd, don't Conservatives boast how more people get their news from Fox than any other source? Seems those "sheeple" are the Conservatives who give Bush a freee pass on the economy.what the sheeple believe doesn't really work in terms of convincing intelligent people.
the MSM is clearly filled with Obama-ass kissers which helps skew the results
That's odd, don't Conservatives boast how more people get their news from Fox than any other source? Seems those "sheeple" are the Conservatives who give Bush a freee pass on the economy.
What you ignore are the economic conditions at the time of those job losses and the economic policy that was implemented to correct the problem.
Nixon | +77% |
Bush | +45% |
Eisenhower | +41% |
Ford* | +36% |
GHW Bush | +28% |
Reagan | +23% |
Obama | +17% |
Kennedy | -17% |
Carter | -21% |
Clinton | -23% |
Johnson | -33% |
Riiiiight ... it's just coincidence or bad fortune that every Republican president since Coolidge has lost jobs during their first 38 months. Including Hoover, that's all 7 Republican presidents. Not one saw employment gains in 2½ years. Whereas Obama is the first Democrat since that era to lose jobs in his first 2½ years. Every one of the other 5 Democrat presidents gained jobs over that period. You must think that too was just coincidence or just good fortune?What you ignore are the economic conditions at the time of those job losses and the economic policy that was implemented to correct the problem.
Nixon | +77% |
Bush | +45% |
Eisenhower | +41% |
Ford* | +36% |
GHW Bush | +28% |
Reagan | +23% |
Obama | +17% |
Kennedy | -17% |
Carter | -21% |
Clinton | -23% |
Johnson | -33% |
So? Most higher educated people voted for Obama.I couldn't care less
the fact is --those with the lowest levels of education are the most likely to vote dem
Riiiiight ... it's just coincidence or bad fortune that every Republican president since Coolidge has lost jobs during their first 38 months. Including Hoover, that's all 7 Republican presidents. Not one saw employment gains in 2½ years. Whereas Obama is the first Democrat since that era to lose jobs in his first 2½ years. Every one of the other 5 Democrat presidents gained jobs over that period. You must think that too was just coincidence or just good fortune?
:roll:
* = Ford was in office 29 months
Nixon +77% Bush +45% Eisenhower +41% Ford* +36% GHW Bush +28% Reagan +23% Obama +17% Kennedy -17% Carter -21% Clinton -23% Johnson -33%
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Actually, it has never been shown. Believe it or not, you repeating that 100 times is not "showing me" anything. But fine, you want numbers too? Here are the percentage point increases/decreases too ...As has been shown over and over again percentage change is irrelevant and totally dependent on the base.
Nixon | +2.6 | +77% |
Bush | +1.5 | +45% |
Eisenhower | +1.2 | +41% |
Ford* | +2.0 | +36% |
GHW Bush | +1.9 | +28% |
Reagan | +1.7 | +23% |
Obama | +1.3 | +17% |
Kennedy | -1.1 | -17% |
Carter | -1.6 | -21% |
Clinton | -1.7 | -23% |
Johnson | -1.7 | -33% |
You cannot rationally compare the economy Obama inherited with the one Reagan Inherited.Tell me that a net job loss is better than a net job gain because the percentage change is better with the net job loss? both Reagan and Obama inherited bad economic conditions although Obama was part of the problem and has proven to be incapable of coming up with a solution.
Riiiight ... I fondly recall you trying to use JAR to show Reagan was a leader whereas Obama is not -- except you were then tasked with the daunting challenge to explain that since Reagan had a JAR lower than Obama 2½ years into his first term.Now you can continue to ignore that and spout the DNC talking points but there is a reason his JAR is so low and that is due to the fact that he doesn't have a clue. Reagan was a leader, Obama probably cannot spell the word. That is reality and the results show it
Actually, it has never been shown. Believe it or not, you repeating that 100 times is not "showing me" anything. But fine, you want numbers too? Here are the percentage point increases/decreases too ...
Nixon +2.6 +77% Bush +1.5 +45% Eisenhower +1.2 +41% Ford* +2.0 +36% GHW Bush +1.9 +28% Reagan +1.7 +23% Obama +1.3 +17% Kennedy -1.1 -17% Carter -1.6 -21% Clinton -1.7 -23% Johnson -1.7 -33%
* = Ford was in office 29 months
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
... happy now? Still doesn't change the fact that every single Republican president on that chart lost jobs in their first 32 months in office whereas Obama is the first Democrat to lose jobs like a Republican, only not as bad.
You cannot rationally compare the economy Obama inherited with the one Reagan Inherited.
GDP 1980-Q4: +7.6 (not in recession)
GDP 2008-Q4: -8.9 (in recession)
Riiiight ... I fondly recall you trying to use JAR to show Reagan was a leader whereas Obama is not -- except you were then tasked with the daunting challenge to explain that since Reagan had a JAR lower than Obama 2½ years into his first term.
Reagan didn't inherit a recession that lost 12 million jobs to underemployment. Had he, that chart would look very different.
Reagan didn't inherit a recession that lost 12 million jobs to underemployment. Had he, that chart would look very different.
Read my lips .... "there was no recession when Reagan became president."Reagan inherited high inflation which gave him a misery index of almost 20 and there was a recession in 1980 so once again you show your ignorance about the period of time yet claim to be an expert. Working Americans were hurt more by the high interest rates and high inflation more than they were hurt by the Recession of Dec. 2007-June 2009. I lived and worked during both and as pointed out, the difference is the recovery and what you get with a leader vs a community agitator.
Read my lips .... "there was no recession when Reagan became president."
That there was one before and one after he was sworn in will never alter that fact, no matter how badly you wish it were true.
And as you have been educated in, neither inflation nor interest rates are economic indicators and your complaint about the misery index is all about inflation since the other component of the misery index, the unemployment rate, was lower than what Obama inherited and and wasn't rising like it was when Obama was sworn in.
There is no comparison between the economy Obama inherited and the one Reagan inherited.
None.
Again, GDP, which actually is an indicator of the economy ...
GDP 1980-Q4: +7.6 (not in recession)
GDP 2008-Q4: -8.9 (in recession)
I've never seen anybody in my life try to make the case that an economy in a massive recession is better than an economy not in a recession at all. :roll:
As far as the recovery from those two recessions, the Great Bush Recession lost 8 million jobs compared to Reagan's recession which lost 4 million.
Try paying 17.5% interest and double digit inflation and tell me we weren't in a recession. .
So? Most higher educated people voted for Obama.
that is not a recession.
That makes you sound like a liberal elite.
BS, it makes me sound like I know what a recession is and is not.
Actually it shows that you don't have a clue, people paying 17.5+ percent for their homes and double digit inflation prices were hurt a lot more than the working people today. That is reality but more importantly is the recovery which shows the value of leadership. Obama has none.
Actually it shows that you don't have a clue, .
Wow you got some gall there. Esp when you claim a misery index determines a recession.
Obama has no leadership, lol, you have gone overboard. How many times has that statement been dis-proven in this thread? Oh, and not by your standards, because your standards dictate that Obama is a bad leader, end of discussion, he is wrong, I am right. Your logic, not mine.
...............
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?