Perhaps, just maybe...

[Yonivore]

...Keynesian economics don't work. Just sayin'


http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/080312jobschart1-600x306.jpg (http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/080312jobschart1.jpg)
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

As the President is fond of saying, "We tried our plan and it worked." Surely, he can't be referring to the past 3 1/2 years and, since, he economic plan looks nothing like Bill Clinton's, I'm guessing he's referring to FDR's New Deal plan -- widely credited with pulling the country out of the Great Depression.

Yeah, well, maybe not so much...

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx)


Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
...
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
Ill-conceived stimulus policies. Hmmmm...

I remember posting this article before Obama stimulated us into an abyss but, I thought it timely to bring it back to the forum.

Also worth mocking:

Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254% (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/wh-adviser-jobless-rate-is-really-8254/1#.UBxJYPZlTrT)

Because it sounds so much better than 8.3%

Speaking of which:

The Employment Situation in July (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/08/03/employment-situation-july)


As the Administration stresses every month, the monthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.

For the 41st month in a row, the longest period in recorded history, the unemployment rate is above 8.0%. And, for the 31st month in a row, the Administration is warning us not to read too much in to one month's numbers.

Tell me, Mr. President; at what point can I read more into the numbers? How many more months have to be strung together before the White House sees a pattern?

[Blake]

I thought sure this was another Carly Rae Jepsen thread

[ChumpDumper]

Ah, another poster shows his ignorance of basic economic theory.

[TeyshaBlue]

...you'll finish a sentence.

[ElNono]

...you'll finish a sentence.

:lol

[Bill_Brasky]

...you'll finish a sentence.

:rollin

Also, I believe there's a thread for this already:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201743

[scott]

Also worth mocking:

Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254%

Because it sounds so much better than 8.3%

That you feel being precise is worth mocking is actually quite telling of your unquestioned support for a candidate who has yet to present any actual ideas.

[Yonivore]

That you feel being precise is worth mocking is actually quite telling of your unquestioned support for a candidate who has yet to present any actual ideas.
That you choose to consume your news from sources that ignore the candidate I support -- except to mock and fabricate gaffes -- is more telling, scott.

Glenn Hubbard: The Romney Plan for Economic Recovery (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)

[Yonivore]

...you'll finish a sentence.
I did finish the sentence.

[scott]

That you choose to consume your news from sources that ignore the candidate I support -- except to mock and fabricate gaffes -- is more telling, scott.

Glenn Hubbard: The Romney Plan for Economic Recovery (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)

You responded to my accusation that your candidate hasn't revealed any specific ideas by sending me to a link that is completely void of specific ideas.


• Stop runaway federal spending and debt. The governor's plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus increasing business and consumer confidence.

• Reform the nation's tax code to increase growth and job creation. The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

• Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability. The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending. It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable experimentation that might better serve recipients.

• Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation. The governor's plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health-care reform.


None of those are specific ideas. I want specifics. HOW will the candidate do these things?

Note: I have the same criticism of Obama and every political candidate since... ever.

[LnGrrrR]

None of those are specific ideas. I want specifics. HOW will the candidate do these things?

if they share details of the plan, they'll give terrorists the upper hand. Are you an appeaser? :nope

[Yonivore]

Note: I have the same criticism of Obama and every political candidate since... ever.
Which is important.

What about Ross Perot and his charts?

[Yonivore]

You responded to my accusation that your candidate hasn't revealed any specific ideas by sending me to a link that is completely void of specific ideas.
There are a lot more specifics here:

Jobs and Economic Growth (http://www.mittromney.com/jobs)

For instance, after beating up on Obama a bit, Romney offers a few more specifics on his tax plan:


MITT'S PLAN
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.


Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Corporate Taxes


The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.


Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

He has similar sections on Regulation, Trade, Energy, Labor, Human Capital, and Spending. There are also side bars linking to related issues.

Seems fairly comprehensive.

Who would of thought to look at the campaign's website, eh?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if government spending is a bad thing why is everyone saying that sequestration cuts would throw the economy into recession?

[Clipper Nation]

None of those are specific ideas. I want specifics. HOW will the candidate do these things?

Note: I have the same criticism of Obama and every political candidate since... ever.
www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)

Specific ideas right down to the numbers, B... Ron bless

[Yonivore]

Just throwing this out there. Barack Obama isn't working.


http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Job-Gains-By-Presidential-Tenure-Medium.jpg (http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1819)
CLICK IMAGE TO VISIT WEBSITE.

[spursncowboys]

You responded to my accusation that your candidate hasn't revealed any specific ideas by sending me to a link that is completely void of specific ideas.



None of those are specific ideas. I want specifics. HOW will the candidate do these things?

Note: I have the same criticism of Obama and every political candidate since... ever.
Obama has been in office for three years without any real specifics. Come on. You are demanding way too much from politicians who will need wiggle room to get out of any promise

[Th'Pusher]

Just throwing this out there. Barack Obama isn't working.


http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Job-Gains-By-Presidential-Tenure-Medium.jpg (http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1819)
CLICK IMAGE TO VISIT WEBSITE.

4.5 million jobs have been created over the last 29 months. Fact.

[Wild Cobra]

...Keynesian economics don't work. Just sayin'
It works just fine.

Just ask any lemming libtard.

Now I will say under some situations, it probably has merit. That does not mean in situations like we have had for several years though.

[ChumpDumper]

^because of the current makeup of the economy, you couldn't just downsize government overnightSo cuts would be a bad thing?

Folks need to make up their minds.

[Clipper Nation]

I just love the irony of a Willard supporter who probably voted for Dubya whining that Keynesian economics don't work, tbh..... What's the alternative? Austrian economics are clearly off the table if you're willing to support big government, big spending Willard.....

[ElNono]

I just love the irony of a Willard supporter who probably voted for Dubya whining that Keynesian economics don't work, tbh..... What's the alternative? Austrian economics are clearly off the table if you're willing to support big government, big spending Willard.....

Imaginary trickle down, of course...

[wut]

4.5 million jobs have been created over the last 29 months. Fact.
I do believe that I read Obama is like ~330,000 jobs away from "breaking even" when he was sworn in....that's really not that good considering there was 3 months of complete collapse prior to the inauguration, but that would jive with your fact. ;)

I've made peace with the fact that as long as we have Obama, we will have 8% unemployment. Our nation will survive Obama. :lol

[Yonivore]

Imaginary trickle down, of course...
By Barack Obama's own estimates, had he done nothing and allowed market forces to work, we'd be at 6.0% unemployment, right now.

[Th'Pusher]

I do believe that I read Obama is like ~330,000 jobs away from "breaking even" when he was sworn in....that's really not that good considering there was 3 months of complete collapse prior to the inauguration, but that would jive with your fact. ;)

I've made peace with the fact that as long as we have Obama, we will have 8% unemployment. Our nation will survive Obama. :lol

I have no idea where you read that, but the economy shed 700k jobs in January of 09 and almost all of the job losses happened in Obamas first 12 months in office. Again, the economy has added 4.6 million in the last 29 months. Obama has added more jobs in 29 months than W did in 8 years.

[ElNono]

By Barack Obama's own estimates, had he done nothing and allowed market forces to work, we'd be at 6.0% unemployment, right now.

Now you know why they're called estimates... what does that has to do with the failed 'trickle down' that got us here in the first place?

[Yonivore]

Now you know why they're called estimates... what does that has to do with the failed 'trickle down' that got us here in the first place?
It was on those estimates Obama sold his failed stimulus plan.

[ElNono]

It was on those estimates Obama sold his failed stimulus plan.

Is that supposed to be a revelation?

Again, why won't you answer the question: What does that has to do with failed trickle down?

[Yonivore]

Is that supposed to be a revelation?

Again, why won't you answer the question: What does that has to do with failed trickle down?
I can't help if you've not been following the thread.

[ElNono]

I can't help if you've not been following the thread.

I'm not asking for help. I'm asking you to defend the failure that put us in this hole and that you were happy to champion back in the day.

The point of connection with this thread is that economic policy fail isn't exclusive to this administration.

Lastly, estimates are not exact science like you pretend to portrait. As much as you like to point out that by his own estimates unemployment would've been at 6% if he had done nothing, it could just as easily be argued that such estimates being wrong overall, unemployment could've easily been above of what it is without stimulus. Or as other people has argued, the stimulus was not nearly enough.

But it's all revisionist history anyways. We know that the stimulus as passed and executed didn't work well. That's not a revelation. We also know that trickle down before it was an abject failure too.

[DMX7]

What does it say that Clinton, who led a world-beater economy, thinks that Obama has generally made the right moves on the economy and that Bush's economy fucking sucked and left Obama in a giant gaping whole to climb out of?

[Yonivore]

What does it say that Clinton, who led a world-beater economy, thinks that Obama has generally made the right moves on the economy and that Bush's economy fucking sucked and left Obama in a giant gaping whole to climb out of?
I don't know, what does it say?

[ElNono]

What does it say that Clinton, who led a world-beater economy, thinks that Obama has generally made the right moves on the economy and that Bush's economy fucking sucked and left Obama in a giant gaping whole to climb out of?

Clinton had a Republican Congress willing to work with him. No such luxury for Barry.

[DMX7]

I don't know, what does it say?

It says Bush failed and Obama is doing the best that can be done with an asshole controlled house and filibustering senate.

[Yonivore]

I'm not asking for help. I'm asking you to defend the failure that put us in this hole and that you were happy to champion back in the day.
I've already posted what I believe put us in this hole.


Lastly, estimates are not exact science like you pretend to portrait. As much as you like to point out that by his own estimates unemployment would've been at 6% if he had done nothing, it could just as easily be argued that such estimates being wrong overall, unemployment could've easily been above of what it is without stimulus. Or as other people has argued, the stimulus was not nearly enough.
Well, that was kind of the point of the UCLA paper posted in the OP.


But it's all revisionist history anyways. We know that the stimulus as passed and executed didn't work well. That's not a revelation. We also know that trickle down before it was an abject failure too.
I'm not so certain George W. Bush was such a big supply-side cheerleader, anyway.

The point of the thread is that the current administration came in on promises of fixing the worst economy since the Great Depression (a lie) within 3 and a half years (a failure). They did this with estimates such as are contained in that graph in the OP.

The crux of the UCLA study is that, perhaps, FDR's stimulus programs actually prolonged the Depression by 7 years and that he just allowed free-market economics work, we would have emerged that many years earlier.

Under George W. Bush, economic regulation went up -- Sarbanes-Oxley, McCain-Feingold, attempting to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with more regulation (smacked down by Democrats several times), etc...

But, the fact remains, Barack Obama inherited an economy in similar shape to the one inherited by Ronald Reagan. You tell me during which administration the economy improved.

[Yonivore]

It says Bush failed and Obama is doing the best that can be done with an asshole controlled house and filibustering senate.
Even if I accept the premise, it's apparent Obama's best doesn't even approach the success enjoyed by previous presidents who inherited similar economies.

Obama isn't working, time for someone else to give it a shot.

[Yonivore]

It says Bush failed and Obama is doing the best that can be done with an asshole controlled house and filibustering senate.
Oh, what's your excuse for Obama's failure from January 21, 2009 to January 1, 2011? His party controlled the House and had a super majority in the Senate.

Still, he had to bribe Senators into voting for Obamacare.

Still, he failed to pass an economic plan that even pretended to turn the economy around.

Still, his party twiddled their thumbs.

[DMX7]

Do you even know what SOX and McCain-Feingold are?

[DMX7]

Oh, what's your excuse for Obama's failure from January 21, 2009 to January 1, 2011? His party controlled the House and had a super majority in the Senate.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg/220px-George-W-Bush.jpeg

Oh, and the super-majority is a myth.

[Yonivore]

Do you even know what SOX and McCain-Feingold are?
Proof Bush wasn't the deregulatory monster he's been made out to be?

[Yonivore]

Oh, and the super-majority is a myth.
From July 8, 2009 to December 31, 2010, there was a Super Majority of Democrats in the U. S. Senate.

[DMX7]

Proof Bush wasn't the deregulatory monster he's been made out to be?

Nice shot in the dark, but if you actually knew the substance of the laws YOU just cited, then maybe you'd sound like less of a hack.

[ElNono]

I've already posted what I believe put us in this hole.

You have a short memory... or you're a partisan hack. I'll take the latter one.


Well, that was kind of the point of the UCLA paper posted in the OP.

The paper doesn't say the policies didn't work. We know they worked, we got out of the Great Depression.


I'm not so certain George W. Bush was such a big supply-side cheerleader, anyway.

His tax cuts for the rich disagree and it's simple to look up where the distribution of wealth has gone during that period. Barry isn't immune to this criticism: he followed the same failed policy.


The point of the thread is that the current administration came in on promises of fixing the worst economy since the Great Depression (a lie) within 3 and a half years (a failure).

Never did such thing. You'll have to back that up. As a matter of fact, the economy went absolutely into the shitter exactly around the election, one month after the TARP passed.

lol revisionist narratives


But, the fact remains, Barack Obama inherited an economy in similar shape to the one inherited by Ronald Reagan. You tell me during which administration the economy improved.

Uh? Reagan inherited an expanding economy with a growing GDP.

Which happens to be what dubya received, the proceeded to fuck it up royally.

[DMX7]

From July 8, 2009 to December 31, 2010, there was a Super Majority of Democrats in the U. S. Senate.

lol, Arlen Specter and independent democrats like Joe Lieberman make up this super-majority you speak of? A technicality is substantively different from a de facto super majority.

[ElNono]

The only president to receive a similar economic situation was Herbert Hoover, a one term abject failure.

The reality is that when you're handed such pile of shit there's simply not much wiggle room. Takes time to recover confidence.

[ElNono]

It's not that Herbert Hoover didn't try, it just that these major fuckups aren't fixed overnight.

[LnGrrrR]

Just throwing this out there. Barack Obama isn't working.


http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Job-Gains-By-Presidential-Tenure-Medium.jpg (http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1819)
CLICK IMAGE TO VISIT WEBSITE.

I thought Clinton was a horrible president though? And Bush was fantastic?

[clambake]

Just throwing this out there. Barack Obama isn't working.


http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Job-Gains-By-Presidential-Tenure-Medium.jpg (http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1819)
CLICK IMAGE TO VISIT WEBSITE.

didn't realize that jimmy wiped the floor with w.

[Yonivore]

You have a short memory... or you're a partisan hack. I'll take the latter one.
Or, neither.


The paper doesn't say the policies didn't work. We know they worked, we got out of the Great Depression.
Retarding the recovery and extending the Depression 7 years isn't "working," except in your world.


His tax cuts for the rich disagree and it's simply to look up where the distribution of wealth has gone during that period. Barry isn't immune to this criticism: he followed the same failed policy.
Because both of them realized -- until now, of course -- that you don't raise taxes on producers in the middle of a recession.


Never did such thing. You'll have to back that up. As a matter of fact, the economy went absolutely into the shitter exactly around the election, one month after the TARP passed.

lol revisionist narratives
TARP was the stupidest thing President Bush did. Well, it is up there with ever thinking Teddy Kennedy would act in good faith. The second stupidest thing he did was releasing the second half of TARP money, he said he wouldn't spend, so Obama could hit the Oval Office with money to down the hole.

But, I admit, I was wrong, it was a three (not 3 1/2) year promise (Bill Cinton's thrown in for good measure)...

7zeGQdkqduY

And, in fact, in 2010, we followed Bill Clinton's admonition and took back the House and neutered the Senate. I think we plan to finish the job in November.

Worst economic crisis since the Great Depression canard...
The First Presidential Debate (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html)


"You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression."
It's been on continuous loop ever since...


I_yPHcFGxQg


"Right now, we're fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

Of course, in the interim, when it became apparent his policies were making things worse, not better, President Obama laughingly claimed things were much worse than he thought, going in.

So, the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression and, yet, worse than he thought? Hmmmm...


Uh? Reagan inherited an expanding economy with a growing GDP.

Which happens to be what dubya received, the proceeded to fuck it up royally.
Reagan and Obama inherited the same unemployment rate, 7.5%. One's went one direction while the other's went the other direction.

[Yonivore]

I thought Clinton was a horrible president though? And Bush was fantastic?
Clinton had benefit of a Republican Congress for most of his presidency.

[Yonivore]

The only president to receive a similar economic situation was Herbert Hoover, a one term abject failure.

The reality is that when you're handed such pile of shit there's simply not much wiggle room. Takes time to recover confidence.
I guess he shouldn't have made that three-year promise to turn it around, eh?

Hopefully, most voters will take him at his word.

[clambake]

bush's leftovers were still tanking.

he would have been hanged if he was still there.

[ElNono]

Or, neither.

Disagree.


Retarding the recovery and extending the Depression 7 years isn't "working," except in your world.

Did the country recover out of the Great Depression (with those policies), yes or no?


Because both of them realized -- until now, of course -- that you don't raise taxes on producers in the middle of a recession.

Cool narrative. A well documented lie, however. The country flourished under a heavier tax burden (ie: Clinton days), and tanked after pervasive debt-ridden tax cuts (ie: Dubya days). This is not up for discussion, simply facts.


TARP was the stupidest thing President Bush did. :blah:blah:blah:blah

lol the economy was bad, but it didn't turn into absolute dogshit until after the TARP, where it took a major nose dive. You can see this in any GDP chart quite clearly:

http://i48.tinypic.com/9bazo1.png


So, the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression and, yet, worse than he thought? Hmmmm...

What's wrong with that? :lol

He simply underestimated the turd passed by dubya's economic ineptitude.


Reagan and Obama inherited the same unemployment rate, 7.5%. One's went one direction while the other's went the other direction.

Which makes absolute sense when one received an expanding economy and the other received a contracting economy.

[ElNono]

I guess he shouldn't have made that three-year promise to turn it around, eh?

Hopefully, most voters will take him at his word.

That's how presidential campaigns are won... see:

"As President, Governor Bush will pay the debt down to a historically low level."

"There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families."

http://web.archive.org/web/200011090115/http://georgewbush.com/issues/index.html

[Clipper Nation]

That's how presidential campaigns are won... see:

"As President, Governor Bush will pay the debt down to a historically low level."

"There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families."

http://web.archive.org/web/200011090115/http://georgewbush.com/issues/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20001130063928/http://www.georgewbush.com/issues/defense.html


Insist that deployments have well-defined objectives. Our military requires the rallying point of a defining mission: to be able to fight and win our nation’s wars – and thereby deter war. Sending our military on vague, aimless and endless deployments is a sure way to destroy morale. Nothing would be better for morale than clarity and focus from the Commander-in-Chief.


1. To Renew the Bond of Trust Between the President and the Military, Governor Bush will:
Maintain longstanding U.S. commitments, but order an immediate review of overseas deployments in dozens of countries, with the aim of replacing uncertain missions with well-defined objectives.

Funny how things change, tbh.....

[Yonivore]

That's how presidential campaigns are won... see:
We'll see in November.

Every Obama promise has an expiration date.

Oh, and the Republican Candidate is Mitt Romney not George W. Bush.

[ElNono]

Oh, and the Republican Candidate is Mitt Romney not George W. Bush.

I have no doubt he's lying just as much as any of the others candidates that preceded him.

[Yonivore]

I have no doubt he's lying just as much as any of the others candidates that preceded him.
He's lying. At this point, predecessors aren't in the picture.

[ElNono]

He's lying. At this point, predecessors aren't in the picture.

But they are. Presidential elections don't exist in a vacuum, especially on a two party system which hasn't really changed the way it gets presidents elected.

[LnGrrrR]

Clinton had benefit of a Republican Congress for most of his presidency.

Ah, and Bush was stuck with a Democratic Congress, right?

[Yonivore]

But they are. Presidential elections don't exist in a vacuum, especially on a two party system which hasn't really changed the way it gets presidents elected.
He's only throwing mud at Romney -- not a predecessor -- and none of it is sticking.

Yes, he's blaming Bush for his own failure but, even that is wearing thin with voters.

He's yet to talk about his own accomplishments in office except, of course, for that "agonizing 40 minutes" after he ordered the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. He's not even honest about that.

[Yonivore]

Ah, and Bush was stuck with a Democratic Congress, right?
The Democrats controlled the Senate for 1/2 of the time, Republicans controlled it for 1/2 the time.

The Democrats controlled the House for 1/4 of the time.

Coincidentally, or not, it was when the Democrats controlled the entire Congress that the economy went south. It was also during that time Bush made his most idiotic economic decision - TARP.

[ElNono]

He's only throwing mud at Romney -- not a predecessor -- and none of it is sticking.

Yes, he's blaming Bush for his own failure but, even that is wearing thin with voters.

He's yet to talk about his own accomplishments in office except, of course, for that "agonizing 40 minutes" after he ordered the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. He's not even honest about that.

I thought we were talking about Romney... but you're back to your monologues... carry on

[Yonivore]

I have no doubt he's lying just as much as any of the others candidates that preceded him.
Sorry, I thought you knew the definitions of the words you use.

[ElNono]

Sorry, I thought you knew the definitions of the words you use.

I do. I was talking about Romney. Since I was replying to:


Oh, and the Republican Candidate is Mitt Romney not George W. Bush.

[wut]

I have no idea where you read that, but the economy shed 700k jobs in January of 09 and almost all of the job losses happened in Obamas first 12 months in office. Again, the economy has added 4.6 million in the last 29 months. Obama has added more jobs in 29 months than W did in 8 years.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/03/obama-closer-to-breaking-even-on-jobs/comment-page-1/

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-06/news/31591072_1_job-creation-rate-obama-administration-mitt-romney

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

You can talk all day long about job gains, but to me employment numbers are far more important (p.s. I know job gains and employment are the same thing, I'm talking about high level perspective).

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_107534_1344116879693.gif
2002 - 2012 graph from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Also take note of the complete collapse at the end of Bush Administration, nearly 50% of the job losses happened PRIOR to 2009 (contrary to your opinion that stated nearly all the job losses happened under Obama's 1st 12 months)....which leads to my original point that Obama's "breaking even" is hardly where we were prior to the collapse.

[Yonivore]

It's only August...Obama has so much more fucking up to do.


Jp77e4lxplI

[Th'Pusher]

It's only August...Obama has so much more fucking up to do.


Jp77e4lxplI

Great audio.

:lol solyndra
:lol staples

[boutons_deux]

His party controlled the House and had a super majority in the Senate.


YOU FUCKING LIE

Dems didn't have 60 in the Senate in 2009/2010. BlueDogs and Lieberman voted/vote with the Repugs on all the big issues.

[Wild Cobra]

YOU FUCKING LIE

Dems didn't have 60 in the Senate in 2009/2010. BlueDogs and Lieberman voted/voted with the Repugs on all the big issues.
But they were there to break filibusters.

[DMC]

No president has added jobs. It's done mostly by the private sector. Presidents that just happen to be in office at the time (dot com bubble, housing loan collapse, terrorist attacks, wars) get credit or blame, but it's been more about things like unions driving automakers out of the country with retarded wages for unskilled labor, and the "my son is taking over the company" moves where businesses that focused on the US were suddenly moving away from this country as CEOs were getting a shit ton of bonus money to drive short term profits which drove stock prices artificially because the market is a fucking quivering bundle of nerves, or they just falsified their earnings statements to sell stock and bail. There are very few "long haul" companies around any more that focus on the long game and don't sell the farm for a quarterly profit announcement.

From top to bottom, it's been about unprecedented greed, a sense of entitlement that everyone deserves a high standard of living.

[DMC]

crofl when will YOU PEOPLE realize that Obama gonwax dettt Republican ass Again in November

the media are trying to make it seem closer than it is in order to make money
Wow are you serious? This is big. Someone record this. (that's what she said)

[Yonivore]

No president has added jobs. It's done mostly by the private sector. Presidents that just happen to be in office at the time (dot com bubble, housing loan collapse, terrorist attacks, wars) get credit or blame, but it's been more about things like unions driving automakers out of the country with retarded wages for unskilled labor, and the "my son is taking over the company" moves where businesses that focused on the US were suddenly moving away from this country as CEOs were getting a shit ton of bonus money to drive short term profits which drove stock prices artificially because the market is a fucking quivering bundle of nerves, or they just falsified their earnings statements to sell stock and bail. There are very few "long haul" companies around any more that focus on the long game and don't sell the farm for a quarterly profit announcement.

From top to bottom, it's been about unprecedented greed, a sense of entitlement that everyone deserves a high standard of living.
Are you suggesting the President can't implement policies that either inhibit or encourage job creation?

Gulf drilling moratorium?

Why are so many coal-fired generating plants shutting down?

This list is long, probably approaching 100%, for commercial enterprises that have been both positively and negatively affected by government regulatory policies.

[Yonivore]

I do. I was talking about Romney. Since I was replying to:
So, let's hear some Romney lies.

[boutons_deux]

But they were there to break filibusters.

60 to break, they didn't have it

and Repugs threatened, since 2009, to filibuster/obstruct anything, no matter how positive it would have been for Human-Americans, because they wanted to deny any success to the "illegitimate" Dems.

[boutons_deux]

No president has added jobs.


Roosevelt created Ms jobs in the 30s, and, as dubious as they are, many economists says Barry's too small stimulus saved/created a few million.

otoh, it's the REPUG states that have laid off/destroyed the most public sector jobs, adding about 1% to the unemployment rate. goal? make/maintain the economy as bad a possible for the biggest number of people for Nov 2012.

And I guess you missed the MIC executives and lobbyists whining a while back about how many Ms of jobs would be lost if the defense budget was reduced in any amount. iow, the defense budget creates/sustains Ms of jobs, and of course huge salaries, dividends for MIC execs and stockholders (aka, transfer of Human-American taxpayers wealth to the 1%, aka, corporate welfare)

[Th'Pusher]

So, let's hear some Romney lies.

Romney promises energy independence by 2020 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/romney-promises-energy-independence-by-2020/article/2503887)

[Yonivore]

Romney promises energy independence by 2020 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/romney-promises-energy-independence-by-2020/article/2503887)
What year is it?

[Th'Pusher]

What year is it?

Both you and I know we will be importing oil 7.4 years from now regardless of whether or not Romney is elected.

[Yonivore]

Both you and I know we will be importing oil 7.4 years from now regardless of whether or not Romney is elected.
It's not a lie until 2020.

I think we could be energy independent if environmentalists and Democrats would get out of the way.

[Th'Pusher]

It's not a lie until 2020.

I think we could be energy independent if environmentalists and Democrats would get out of the way.

It's not going to happen. You know it, I know it and he knows it, therefore it is a lie.

[ElNono]

So, let's hear some Romney lies.

http://www.mittromney.com

[DMX7]

I agree it's not a lie until it's realized (in 2020). It's just a disingenuous piece of bullshit for now.

[ElNono]

Time will tell if what he's saying is a lie or not. As I pointed out, my opinion is that he is, and it's not like I'm taking a risky position. The next president that ends up doing what he has promised during the campaign, will likely be the first.

[DMX7]

I think we could be energy independent if environmentalists and Democrats would get out of the way.

Is this opinion based on factual information or just a fantasy? Are you aware of how much oil America is capable of producing relative to how much it consumes?