Birthers vs Returners

[kramerfan86]

The point remains though that its a bit dishonest though to claim factory jobs leaving is some how a good thing as though the jobs are being switched straight across for engineering jobs so everyone is hunky dory now. Plus at the end of the day you dont need as many engineers in a company as you do blue collar workers, it will never shift to a straight across trade. Trading factory jobs for service jobs is a much closer truth, but it is a bit harder for Stossel to try and sell that as a positive to people.

 

[JollyRoger]

Stossel misses that we have had a lost decade in trying to fix demand side problems with supply side solutions.

 

[Cutlass]

Just getting Obama out of office adds two points to GDP as people will no longer be afraid to invest and initiate new concerns.

Thats going to have a lot of effect on tax revenue.

And yet every Republican in 40 years has lowered GDP growth. GW Bush got none at all.

 

[Patroklos]

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/

Here are the individual performances of each president since 1948:

1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
2009 (Barack Obama, Democrat), -2.6%

 

[Formaldehyde]

Who is "Dave Manual" and where is his source for this information?

But even if it is accurate, it just shows how misleading statistics really are when some use this to try to blame Obama for the mess GWB and the Republicans created during the first 8 years of this century.

Besides presidents typically have little to do with how the economy does during their presidency in most cases. Of course, there are exceptions when they and their political party intentionally dismantle the checks and balances that keep banks and others from acting so foolishly.

 

[JollyRoger]

Wow, Obama is governing a lot further to the right than I thought.

 

[cegman]

Yup when the Democrat president removed those checks you expect a democrat to fix it. Sounds fair.

 

[Patroklos]

Who is "Dave Manual" and where is his source for this information?

It's linked right there on tkhe site.

But even if it is accurate, it just shows how misleading statistics really are when some use this to try to blame Obama for the mess GWB and the Republicans created during the first 8 years of this century.

What it shows is cutlass was wrong.

Let's play your game though. Shall we five Clinton's numbers to Bush? Kennedy/Johnson's to Eisenhower?

Besides presidents typically have little to do with how the economy does during their presidency in most cases. Of course, there are exceptions when they and their political party intentionally dismantle the checks and balances that keep banks and others from acting so foolishly.

Does any of that somehow make Cutlass's comment any less wrong?

 

[Ajidica]

Pat, if we look at the very first comment posted:

2009 was still working under the 2008 budget passed by Bush so it isn't accurate to blame Obama for Bush's policies.

I would also like to highlight that Democratic presidents have had traditionaly higher GDP growth than GOP presidents. I mean, LBJ, champion of Great Society programs, had higher GDP growth that any republican president.

 

[Core Imposter]

And I guess we won't ever be able to blame Obama for his policies since he's never passed a budget.

 

[say1988]

Well, I suppose that makes him equal to every President.

 

[Core Imposter]

Do we hear yet another "thud?" In 2011, when Democrats in the Senate forced a vote on President Barack Obama's 2012 budget, it was defeated 97-0. Earlier this week, on March 28, in a rare show of bipartisanship, Obama's $3.6 trillion proposed 2013 budget was defeated 414-0 in the House of Representatives.

And you can pretend that companies are comfortable enough with this to roll out new investments but they are not. People are scared to death and they are not looking outward. They are looking at Washington. We all know thats where the problem is.

 

[Core Imposter]

This has become the season of Democrat disgrace. Beyond running the dirtiest, emptiest and most deceptive campaign in memory, the party has demonstrated a total incapacity to govern. The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a budget -- the sine qua non of governing -- in more than three years. Under Reid's leadership, no budget resolution has even been brought to the floor. The federal debt, under Barack Obama, has increased by more than $5 trillion in less than four years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/10/unfit_to_govern_115056.html

 

[Ailedhoo]

This has become the season of Democrat disgrace. Beyond running the dirtiest, emptiest and most deceptive campaign in memory, the party has demonstrated a total incapacity to govern. The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a budget -- the sine qua non of governing -- in more than three years. Under Reid's leadership, no budget resolution has even been brought to the floor. The federal debt, under Barack Obama, has increased by more than $5 trillion in less than four years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/10/unfit_to_govern_115056.html

Forgive me but... the Republicans are controlling much of the House of Represenatives. It is not to get laws through...

Also you seen have ineffective the Republicans are?

 

[Perfection]

Again, Reid is not running for president. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. In the following list:
Reid, Obama, Romney LBJ
Which of these is not like the others?

Romney because he's the republican.

 

[kramerfan86]

This has become the season of Democrat disgrace. Beyond running the dirtiest, emptiest and most deceptive campaign in memory, the party has demonstrated a total incapacity to govern. The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a budget -- the sine qua non of governing -- in more than three years. Under Reid's leadership, no budget resolution has even been brought to the floor. The federal debt, under Barack Obama, has increased by more than $5 trillion in less than four years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/10/unfit_to_govern_115056.html

This of course ignores the republicans fillibustering any budget that isnt exactly what they want. I fail to see how that constitutes a democratic failure to govern.

 

[Leoreth]

Repeal what tax increases on them?

The invention of taxes?

Just getting Obama out of office adds two points to GDP as people will no longer be afraid to invest and initiate new concerns.

I don't think $2 of GDP will make that much of a difference.

Romney because he's the republican.

Obama because he's black!

 

[Murky]

Again, Reid is not running for president. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. In the following list:
Reid, Obama, Romney LBJ
Which of these is not like the others?

Depends on how you look at it.

Reid isn't like the others because he didn't run for President.
Obama isn't like the others because he's black.
Romney isn't like the others because he's a Mormon
LBJ isn't like the others because he's dead.

 

[KaiserElectric]

This of course ignores the republicans fillibustering any budget that isnt exactly what they want.

[citation needed]

 

[JollyRoger]

[citation needed]

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=Record&c=111

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=Record&c=112