• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires (Continued)

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?
  • Obama and Democrats: 32%
  • Bush and Republicans: 52%
  • Both equally (vol.): 13%
CNN/ORC, September 23-25, 1,010 adults, MoE+/-3

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
 
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

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. The results of Obama are today, over two years after the end of the recession that he inherited but as a member of Congress did not prevent. Those results will be on the ballot in Nov. 2012 and there is no reason to re-elect him and those results were created at a cost of over 4.2 trillion added to the debt

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
 
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.
 
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.

I couldn't care less

the fact is --those with the lowest levels of education are the most likely to vote dem
 
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.

You mean like when Bush 41 inherited the Reagan economy yet still lost a higher % of jobs 32 mnths in than Obama.........


Nixon +77%
Bush +45%
Eisenhower +41%
Ford* +36%
GHW Bush +28%
Reagan +23%
Obama +17%
Kennedy -17%
Carter -21%
Clinton -23%
Johnson -33%

"Read my lips"
 
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.
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:




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
 
I couldn't care less

the fact is --those with the lowest levels of education are the most likely to vote dem
So? Most higher educated people voted for Obama.
 
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:




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

As has been shown over and over again percentage change is irrelevant and totally dependent on the base. 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. 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

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4.2 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.
 
As has been shown over and over again percentage change is irrelevant and totally dependent on the base.
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. ;)

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.
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)


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
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.
 
Last edited:
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 Recovery vs. Obama Recovery in Pictures
 
Reagan didn't inherit a recession that lost 12 million jobs to underemployment. Had he, that chart would look very different.

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.
 
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.
 
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. That recession began in June 1981 and the Reagan economic play wasn't passed until August. You can try to re-write history but you cannot change it.

What you and far too many "young" people today fail to understand is that the misery index of 19.33 made the 81-82 recession worse for the individual than the 07-09 recession. The problem is you are focused on the past and not the future which of course is the recovery. Recovery matters more than than the past because there is nothing you can do about the past. Keep buying the spin and the rhetoric while ignoring the results.

Reagan had a net job increase of 17 million and generated those results with leadership. Your community organizer is a divider and has no chance of generating those kind of numbers unless everyone works for the govt. I love how people who weren't around during the Reagan years or too young to know what was going on somehow today are experts. Just goes to show how liberalism has brainwashed far too many.
 
that is not a recession.

That makes you sound like a liberal elite. Tell that to the people who had to pay the rates which affected credit and total cost of living. Amazing how little you and others know about the 80's all in an attempt to build up an empty suit who is wasting more of our money than any other President in history. Wonder if Obama will hold a pep rally at Solyndra's empty building or maybe Sun Power. Where is your outrage and why the support for Obama and his policies that generated those kind of results?
 
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, 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.

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.
 
Wow you got some gall there. Esp when you claim a misery index determines a recession.

Post where I said that misery index determines a recession? Misery index shows how people are affected by a recession especially working people.
 
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.

Take a leadership class in school and then get back to me if you believe Obama has any leadership skills at all.
 
Post where I said that misery index determines a recession? Misery index shows how people are affected by a recession especially working people.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Conservative

Try paying 17.5% interest and double digit inflation and tell me we weren't in a recession.


...............
 
...............

Don't see where there is any proof there. Individuals can be in a recession and the economy not officially in a recession, happens all the time. Paying 17.5% and higher interest rates along with double digit inflation hurt individuals a lot more than the current recession.
 
Back
Top Bottom