• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

donc said:
We’ll see…..after his two terms are over who had the best Presidency.
Click to expand...

he's already irrelevant, he can't offer leadership even on an issue as central as whether or not to extend the cuts, to whom, to whom not, for how long, when he will act...

three days after the day after tomorrow, he's gonna be invisible

he's an albatross, albatross obama

everyone's running away from him, taylor in mississippi, donnelly in indiana, marshall in georgia, pomeroy in north dakota, manchin in west virginia, bright in alabama, defazio in oregon, shuler in north carolina, denish in new mexico, nye in virginia, boyd in florida...

Some Democratic candidates distance themselves from Obama

Some Democrats keep distance from Obama - Los Angeles Times

dnc tim kaine says they're "nuts"

DNC chief doubles down, says Democrats 'nuts' to run from party - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

colbert quipped he hadn't seen so many people running from a party since he called the cops on a bunch of rowdy high schoolers next door

gibbs is more understanding

pelosi, whom mr bright said he wouldn't mind seeing dead, approves members trying to save themselves

and then there's JOHN STEWART

and HIS AUDIENCE

they were laughing AT the lame duck not with him

the white house itself indicated that campaigning for candidates at this point would not really be what normal people would consider help

W.H.: Don't bet on Obama effect - Glenn Thrush and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

cbs/nyt yesterday reported that 14% of voters asked said that campaigning with obama would help a given candidate, 29% said standing aside the loser would hurt

Poll: Independents Drive GOP Midterm Advantage - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

cuz if you've lost JON STEWART...
 
TurtleDude said:
cause and effect were not proven
Click to expand...

Wasn't claiming any causality. Conservative said that there was not any period in the last 30 years when the tax when up and debt when down. These articles seem to differ.

As for causality, lets go look at the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Gross National Debt as a Percent of GDP, by President

It is pretty obvious from that chart that, since Ike left office, the Republicans screw up the balance sheet. Reagan and Bush I really hosed things and it took Clinton to fix it. Then, another Bush and, guess what, more fiscal irresponsibility.

Facts say that Republicans haven't shown any propensity toward fiscal responsibility. They argue for cutting taxes in a way that helps the rich at the expense of the middle class which bogus claims that it helps employment. Nonsense.

Republicans campaign is blatant hypocrisy. They campaign on fiscal responsibility and and the record is clear that they are not fiscally responsible. They campaign on family values and they have just as many gays as the population as a whole (I think that is OK but for the hypocrisy). They campaign on keeping government out of you life except they want to regulate what a woman does with her womb (when did motherhood become mandatory).

Republicans consistently do things that are anti-middle class and the stupid middle class keeps voting for them. We are so dain brammaged that its not funny any more.

Sorry, what was the question?
 
zip98053 said:
Wasn't claiming any causality. Conservative said that there was not any period in the last 30 years when the tax when up and debt when down. These articles seem to differ.

As for causality, lets go look at the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Gross National Debt as a Percent of GDP, by President

It is pretty obvious from that chart that, since Ike left office, the Republicans screw up the balance sheet. Reagan and Bush I really hosed things and it took Clinton to fix it. Then, another Bush and, guess what, more fiscal irresponsibility.

Facts say that Republicans haven't shown any propensity toward fiscal responsibility. They argue for cutting taxes in a way that helps the rich at the expense of the middle class which bogus claims that it helps employment. Nonsense.

Republicans campaign is blatant hypocrisy. They campaign on fiscal responsibility and and the record is clear that they are not fiscally responsible. They campaign on family values and they have just as many gays as the population as a whole (I think that is OK but for the hypocrisy). They campaign on keeping government out of you life except they want to regulate what a woman does with her womb (when did motherhood become mandatory).

Republicans consistently do things that are anti-middle class and the stupid middle class keeps voting for them. We are so dain brammaged that its not funny any more.

Sorry, what was the question?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article I posted regarding the Clinton tax increases? Obviously not since in 1997 the taxes were cut by the Republican Controlled Congress and Clinton signed them. You definitely have been brainwashed and need to broaden your research capabilities. I don't think I would be discussing fiscal responsibility with Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress adding 3 trillion to the debt in 2 years. That is 60% of the entire Bush debt for 8 years in two. Amazing how some people continue to drink the liberal Kool-Aid.

By the way, Zip, a little multiple choice quiz for you.

Did Bill Clinton signed

A. His budgets with less spending
B. Republican Congress budgets with less spending
 
Last edited:
zip98053 said:
You aren't seriously expecting me to accept the analysis of The Heritage Foundation as in any way impartial, are you? I'm not even going to click on the link. Find something even mildly less partisan and I'll read it.
Click to expand...

I don't blame you, too many facts in there including a time line. Not surprising as you don't want anything that refutes what you have been told. Facts are facts regardless of who reports them.
 
Conservative said:
Did you read the article I posted regarding the Clinton tax increases? Obviously not since in 1997 the taxes were cut by the Republican Controlled Congress and Clinton signed them. You definitely have been brainwashed and need to broaden your research capabilities. I don't think I would be discussing fiscal responsibility with Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress adding 3 trillion to the debt in 2 years. That is 60% of the entire Bush debt for 8 years in two. Amazing how some people continue to drink the liberal Kool-Aid.

By the way, Zip, a little multiple choice quiz for you.

Did Bill Clinton signed

A. His budgets with less spending
B. Republican Congress budgets with less spending
Click to expand...

As previously posted, not interested in any "analysis" from The Heritage Foundation.

I think that you need to learn something about relative numbers. You keep using absolute numbers to try to make a point and they don't really illustrate anything but the lack of a divide button on you calculator.

As for your quiz, the answer is C, none of the above. The budget was larger in each year of the Clinton administration both in real and constant dollars.
 
zip98053 said:
As previously posted, not interested in any "analysis" from The Heritage Foundation.

I think that you need to learn something about relative numbers. You keep using absolute numbers to try to make a point and they don't really illustrate anything but the lack of a divide button on you calculator.

As for your quiz, the answer is C, none of the above. The budget was larger in each year of the Clinton administration both in real and constant dollars.
Click to expand...

Yes, the number was larger each year but that is only part of the story. It was the GOP Congress that cut the Clinton budgets and he signed them with less than he asked for. How does that compare against the Bush budgets with the Democrat Controlled Congress? Think the Democrat controlled Congress cut or increased the Bush budgets? Bet you don't answer that one.

As for the Heritage Foundation, it really doesn't matter who reports the facts because the facts don't change. You just need to admit that you have been duped by an ideology and we can move one.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, the number was larger each year but that is only part of the story. It was the GOP Congress that cut the Clinton budgets and he signed them with less than he asked for. How does that compare against the Bush budgets with the Democrat Controlled Congress? Think the Democrat controlled Congress cut or increased the Bush budgets? Bet you don't answer that one.

As for the Heritage Foundation, it really doesn't matter who reports the facts because the facts don't change. You just need to admit that you have been duped by an ideology and we can move one.
Click to expand...

Let's see, Bush and the Republican Congress oversee a meltdown in the economy and then, when the Democrats get in, they, at Bush's insistence, increase spending in order to try to keep the economy from going further in the toilet. Wow, good point. You have clearly shown that... what have you shown?
 
zip98053 said:
Let's see, Bush and the Republican Congress oversee a meltdown in the economy and then, when the Democrats get in, they, at Bush's insistence, increase spending in order to try to keep the economy from going further in the toilet. Wow, good point. You have clearly shown that... what have you shown?
Click to expand...

Interesting how the Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn't show that meltdown when the Republicans were in charge of Congress. Looks to me like 52 straight months of job creation and economic growth including the last year of the GOP/Bush Budget, 2007 (2003-2007). Democrats take control of the Congress in January 2007 and the country goes into recession December 2007 yet according to you it was the Republican Congress that how did you say it, "oversee a meltdown in the economy?" Let me know what it is you are smoking or drinking?
 
The Prof said:
he's already irrelevant, he can't offer leadership even on an issue as central as whether or not to extend the cuts, to whom, to whom not, for how long, when he will act...

three days after the day after tomorrow, he's gonna be invisible

he's an albatross, albatross obama

everyone's running away from him, taylor in mississippi, donnelly in indiana, marshall in georgia, pomeroy in north dakota, manchin in west virginia, bright in alabama, defazio in oregon, shuler in north carolina, denish in new mexico, nye in virginia, boyd in florida...

Some Democratic candidates distance themselves from Obama

Some Democrats keep distance from Obama - Los Angeles Times

dnc tim kaine says they're "nuts"

DNC chief doubles down, says Democrats 'nuts' to run from party - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

colbert quipped he hadn't seen so many people running from a party since he called the cops on a bunch of rowdy high schoolers next door

gibbs is more understanding

pelosi, whom mr bright said he wouldn't mind seeing dead, approves members trying to save themselves

and then there's JOHN STEWART

and HIS AUDIENCE

they were laughing AT the lame duck not with him

the white house itself indicated that campaigning for candidates at this point would not really be what normal people would consider help

W.H.: Don't bet on Obama effect - Glenn Thrush and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

cbs/nyt yesterday reported that 14% of voters asked said that campaigning with obama would help a given candidate, 29% said standing aside the loser would hurt

Poll: Independents Drive GOP Midterm Advantage - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

cuz if you've lost JON STEWART...
Click to expand...

Why the five lamea** links to something to that no one besides yourself clicks on? Do you think that posting multiple links somehow gives your post some creditability? What would give you SOME creditability would have posted something that was REMOTELY close to the link you were quoting. Which was
(We’ll see…..after his two terms are over who had the best Presidency.)
Click to expand...

That said, I,ll attempt to get this sucker back on track; maybe then, you can follow the point I was trying to make.

This looks like a possible 94 midterm rerun. Clinton was weakened by a few blunders and of course the repugs, doing what they best, stall and obstruct, had the desired effect.Poll numbers in the tank, even lower than Obamas now. Clinton campaigned his a** off for everyone but still the Dems ended up in the barrel.The repugs were walking tall; they controlled the house, which was something they hadn’t done for fifty years and they had the Senate, for the first time in eight.

Now fast forward past Monica,impeachment, past Whitewater and the lamea** attempts at defaming him AND his wife, calling them everything from murders, to a drugdealers. It didn’t matter what the repug noise machine threw at him, the country wasn’t buying any of the bulls****.

Enter 1996 and his run against Senator Sourdough resulted in 49 percent of the popular vote. Thank you Ross.:mrgreen: Speaking of Ross Perot, conservative, get the ole crystal ball out and look at the 2012 Presidential election and see if you don’t see a possible deju vu, with the tea party and all. :2wave:

Now prof, see if you can manage this without a half dozen links…Ooo, yes, see if you can manage to make one of your sentences come close to the post your quoting.




.
 
Last edited:
zip98053 said:
Wasn't claiming any causality. Conservative said that there was not any period in the last 30 years when the tax when up and debt when down. These articles seem to differ.

As for causality, lets go look at the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

Gross National Debt as a Percent of GDP, by President

It is pretty obvious from that chart that, since Ike left office, the Republicans screw up the balance sheet. Reagan and Bush I really hosed things and it took Clinton to fix it. Then, another Bush and, guess what, more fiscal irresponsibility.

Facts say that Republicans haven't shown any propensity toward fiscal responsibility. They argue for cutting taxes in a way that helps the rich at the expense of the middle class which bogus claims that it helps employment. Nonsense.

Republicans campaign is blatant hypocrisy. They campaign on fiscal responsibility and and the record is clear that they are not fiscally responsible. They campaign on family values and they have just as many gays as the population as a whole (I think that is OK but for the hypocrisy). They campaign on keeping government out of you life except they want to regulate what a woman does with her womb (when did motherhood become mandatory).

Republicans consistently do things that are anti-middle class and the stupid middle class keeps voting for them. We are so dain brammaged that its not funny any more.

Sorry, what was the question?
Click to expand...

what is anti middle class?
 
Conservative said:
I don't blame you, too many facts in there including a time line. Not surprising as you don't want anything that refutes what you have been told. Facts are facts regardless of who reports them.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no issue with the facts that The Heritage Foundations puts into their documents. What I question is the way that they will unabashedly twist the "facts" an claim that they show something that they don't really show. Just to give a concrete example, I read the report (actually, I didn't read the whole report but I looked at the tables that they produced to make their points. Their chart 1 was enough to let me know that this was not going to be very enlightening. That chart claims to show that the economy grows faster after a tax cut. Does say what kind or the size of the tax cut. It doesn't even tell us how many tax increase and cuts that they looked at (there is a strong implication that they only considered what happened during the Clinton administration) so there is no way to know if this really represents something that is statistically significant. It's like waking up one morning and seeing snow on the ground an deciding that this is proof that global warming is not true.

Anyway, the article then goes on to explain that a tiny cut in the capital gains rate made a big difference in investment activity (e.g. venture capital).The relationship between tax cuts and The Republicans didn't cut the marginal tax rate. Generalizing this to saying tax cuts are good is stupid. This is why I don't bother with crap like the reports from The Heritage Foundation. There is no rigor in their analysis. They select data to make a point and that's all they show. It's great for people who don't know how to think for themselves because it gives them "authoritative" links to stick into their posts.

Hey, I like a good tax cut as well as the next guy but just whacking away doesn't do any good. I'd like not to have a large deficit to pass on to my descendants because I don't want the interest on the debt to take an excessive part of the budget. I'd like to see the debt as a percentage of GDP to go back down. I don't give a damn how big it is in absolute numbers, it just needs to be a reasonable percentage. We can't just cut discretionary spending to make this happen. Discretionary spending isn't a large enough part of the budget anymore. We will probably have to do some things to make SS solvent (raise the upper limit on income subject to FICA and bump the retirement age a couple of years). We need to try to grow ourselves out of this mess. Keeping the capital gains rate low would held. Letting the Bush cuts for the wealthy expire will not hurt anything (at least not according to the data in The Heritage Foundation article that you provoked me to read).

The best thing for making the economy grow has always been to spend big on infrastructure. This does two things: it creates immediate jobs and it improves productivity. Higher, productivity makes us better able to compete with countries that rely on low labor costs. I've watched two episodes of infrastructure building, both of them were superhighways: one real (the Eisenhower Interstate System) and the other digital (the Internet). Those were the catalyst for surges in investment and improvements in productivity. We need a new super highway system to build. Maybe the energy superhighway.

Hum, seem to have wandered off again...

Anyway, Heritage Foundation puts out crap. Well written and wonderfully deceptive crap; but crap none the less.
 
you willing to pay half of your income in taxes Zip?
 
TurtleDude said:
you willing to pay half of your income in taxes Zip?
Click to expand...

The taxes I will pay under the Obama plan vs the Mccain plan are virtually the same. They only increase significantly for those who make over $160k per year. I doubt anyone of this forum makes over that amount.
 
TurtleDude said:
what is anti middle class?
Click to expand...

I presume that you want to know what the Republicans are doing to cause the middle class to shrink?

1) encouraging the export of jobs to third-world countries
2) allowing credit card companies to charge usury-level interest (they fought like hell to keep Obama's credit reform from passing)
3) working to make it harder for unions to form - I don't like bad unions but there needs to be some reasonable balance between employee and employer and that doesn't exist now.
4) corporate welfare - produces profits, not jobs and, when companies are not paying their fair share of taxes, the burden falls on the rest of us
5) and the biggie - deal with education. When people have no skills, they can't get jobs that pay well. I'm not saying that we should pump money into a system that is dominated by the NEA (not a good union) nor should the system be dominated by people like the bozos in Texas who by textbooks that indoctrinate rather than educate. But, I suspect that having a really well educated citizenry would work counter to the Republican agenda which relies on people being as clueless as possible.


The failure to look after the middle class in America is not a recent phenomenon. It is a problem that has persisted across many administrations. It is a consequence of globalization, which is a good thing. The problem is, globalization was supposed to work for us by having us send the low-skill jobs to low-paying countries while we upgraded our workforce to do higher-valued tasks. Well, we did half of what we were supposed to do. We sent the low-skilled jobs overseas. Forgot about the second part.

Bush did No Child Left Behind. Nice plan. He and the Republican-controlled Congress just didn't bother to pay for it.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
The taxes I will pay under the Obama plan vs the Mccain plan are virtually the same. They only increase significantly for those who make over $160k per year. I doubt anyone of this forum makes over that amount.
Click to expand...

Do I get thrown off the forum if I do?
 
Conservative said:
Interesting how the Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn't show that meltdown when the Republicans were in charge of Congress. Looks to me like 52 straight months of job creation and economic growth including the last year of the GOP/Bush Budget, 2007 (2003-2007). Democrats take control of the Congress in January 2007 and the country goes into recession December 2007 yet according to you it was the Republican Congress that how did you say it, "oversee a meltdown in the economy?" Let me know what it is you are smoking or drinking?
Click to expand...

Well, I hope that I'm not drinking the same cool-aid as you.

So, if you want to say that the party in charge of Congress is responsible for anything that happens from the instant that they get sworn in; how about 9/11? Biggest loss of life on American soil by foreign nationals since 1812. Clearly a massive screwup by the Republicans since they had been in control of Congress since 1995 and held the Presidency for months (almost 9). Should have impeached the lot of them on the spot. Right?

Since you have obviously forgotten that the financial problems started way before Dec. 2007, try this:

The Financial Crisis Timeline

The time line only shows the actual unraveling of the system. It doesn't show the process of decay that preceded it while the Republicans ran the country. I know that you don't really believe that the Democrats could have prevented this meltdown in the two-weeks-ish that they were in control of Congress before the crisis started. Why bother trying to blame them? I'm really not as naive as you seem to think and I think that you aren't as dumb as to believe what you are saying.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
The taxes I will pay under the Obama plan vs the Mccain plan are virtually the same. They only increase significantly for those who make over $160k per year. I doubt anyone of this forum makes over that amount.
Click to expand...

I think you might be surprised.
 
zip98053 said:
Well, I hope that I'm not drinking the same cool-aid as you.

So, if you want to say that the party in charge of Congress is responsible for anything that happens from the instant that they get sworn in; how about 9/11? Biggest loss of life on American soil by foreign nationals since 1812. Clearly a massive screwup by the Republicans since they had been in control of Congress since 1995 and held the Presidency for months (almost 9). Should have impeached the lot of them on the spot. Right?

Since you have obviously forgotten that the financial problems started way before Dec. 2007, try this:

The Financial Crisis Timeline

The time line only shows the actual unraveling of the system. It doesn't show the process of decay that preceded it while the Republicans ran the country. I know that you don't really believe that the Democrats could have prevented this meltdown in the two-weeks-ish that they were in control of Congress before the crisis started. Why bother trying to blame them? I'm really not as naive as you seem to think and I think that you aren't as dumb as to believe what you are saying.
Click to expand...

The crisis didn't begin the first day they took office, it took place 11 months later, plenty of time to do the damage. I posted GDP and jobs numbers which of course you ignored. I gave you the 2003-2007 GDP and it does seem that you lack a basic understanding of the way our govt. operates. The Democrat Congress controlled the legislative process thus the budget process. They could have stopped anything Bush did and you seem to blame Bush for the problems therefore tell me why they didn't do anything to stop him? There is a simple answer, there was nothing Bush proposed that caused the problems we faced and the Democrats were more concerned about winning the WH than preventing problems for the country.

Zip, you got your wish, a leftwing radical President and the results speak for themselves. If we had a pro growth, pro free enterprise, and not a pro big govt. Administration we would have 4-6% economic growth now and a massive cut in the unemployment numbers in the country thus more revenue to the govt. Instead we have 2% economic growth, millions of employees added to the Federal workforce, and trillions added to the debt. That seems to be the liberal definition of success. Why do you support this agenda?

The cries from the left is give us more time, more time to do what? If you spend trillions to stimulate the economy and you get these kind of results why would you step on the gas and saddle ourselves with more massive debt? We do not have an economy and never will have an economy to pay for thes kind of debt being generated.
 
zip98053 said:
Well, I hope that I'm not drinking the same cool-aid as you.

So, if you want to say that the party in charge of Congress is responsible for anything that happens from the instant that they get sworn in; how about 9/11? Biggest loss of life on American soil by foreign nationals since 1812. Clearly a massive screwup by the Republicans since they had been in control of Congress since 1995 and held the Presidency for months (almost 9). Should have impeached the lot of them on the spot. Right?

Since you have obviously forgotten that the financial problems started way before Dec. 2007, try this:

The Financial Crisis Timeline

The time line only shows the actual unraveling of the system. It doesn't show the process of decay that preceded it while the Republicans ran the country. I know that you don't really believe that the Democrats could have prevented this meltdown in the two-weeks-ish that they were in control of Congress before the crisis started. Why bother trying to blame them? I'm really not as naive as you seem to think and I think that you aren't as dumb as to believe what you are saying.
Click to expand...

By the way, the fiscal year of the United States, thus the budget and legislative agenda begins on October 1 thus the Democrats controlled that process on October 1, 2008. Unemployment started rising in the summer of 2008 and the financial crisis really hit in August. Bush and the Congress created the TARP program that was signed as part of the 2009 fiscal year economic plan. I gave you the actual results of that program and you of course ignored those results. Payback of TARP should have reduced the deficit but didn't, why?
 
donc said:
Why the five lamea** links to something to that no one besides yourself clicks on? Do you think that posting multiple links somehow gives your post some creditability? What would give you SOME creditability would have posted something that was REMOTELY close to the link you were quoting. Which was

That said, I,ll attempt to get this sucker back on track; maybe then, you can follow the point I was trying to make.

This looks like a possible 94 midterm rerun. Clinton was weakened by a few blunders and of course the repugs, doing what they best, stall and obstruct, had the desired effect.Poll numbers in the tank, even lower than Obamas now. Clinton campaigned his a** off for everyone but still the Dems ended up in the barrel.The repugs were walking tall; they controlled the house, which was something they hadn’t done for fifty years and they had the Senate, for the first time in eight.

Now fast forward past Monica,impeachment, past Whitewater and the lamea** attempts at defaming him AND his wife, calling them everything from murders, to a drugdealers. It didn’t matter what the repug noise machine threw at him, the country wasn’t buying any of the bulls****.

Enter 1996 and his run against Senator Sourdough resulted in 49 percent of the popular vote. Thank you Ross.:mrgreen: Speaking of Ross Perot, conservative, get the ole crystal ball out and look at the 2012 Presidential election and see if you don’t see a possible deju vu, with the tea party and all. :2wave:

Now prof, see if you can manage this without a half dozen links…Ooo, yes, see if you can manage to make one of your sentences come close to the post your quoting.




.
Click to expand...

Donc, why do you support an Administration that has generated these kind of results? All I see from you is attacks on the past while ignoring the agenda of this Adminstration. What is it that the majority in this country see that you don't? Seems that you want to continue to live in the past while ignoring the present and the economic policy that this leftwing President is implementing. Guess that is the only way you can justify your own vote and actions.

Here is something to think about

Here is a chart that shows past presidents and the percentage of each president's cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector - you know, a real life business, not a government or teaching job.

1) T. Roosevelt 38%
2) Taft 40%
3) Wilson 52%
4) Harding 42%
5) FDR 50%
6) Truman 50%
7) Eisenhower 57%
8) Kennedy 30%
9) LBJ 37%
10)Nixon 53%
11)Ford 42%
12)Carter 22%
13)Reagan 59%
14)GHWB 51%
15)Clinton 37%
16)GWB 55%

And the Chicken Dinner Winner is:
OBAMA - 8%

These are the people who want to tell YOU how to run YOUR life! ONLY ONE IN TWELVE in the Obama Cabinet HAS EVER HAD A JOB in the private sector.
 
Conservative said:
Donc, why do you support an Administration that has generated these kind of results? All I see from you is attacks on the past while ignoring the agenda of this Adminstration. What is it that the majority in this country see that you don't? Seems that you want to continue to live in the past while ignoring the present and the economic policy that this leftwing President is implementing. Guess that is the only way you can justify your own vote and actions.

Here is something to think about

Here is a chart that shows past presidents and the percentage of each president's cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector - you know, a real life business, not a government or teaching job.

1) T. Roosevelt 38%
2) Taft 40%
3) Wilson 52%
4) Harding 42%
5) FDR 50%
6) Truman 50%
7) Eisenhower 57%
8) Kennedy 30%
9) LBJ 37%
10)Nixon 53%
11)Ford 42%
12)Carter 22%
13)Reagan 59%
14)GHWB 51%
15)Clinton 37%
16)GWB 55%

And the Chicken Dinner Winner is:
OBAMA - 8%

These are the people who want to tell YOU how to run YOUR life! ONLY ONE IN TWELVE in the Obama Cabinet HAS EVER HAD A JOB in the private sector.
Click to expand...

Are the numbers true?
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
Are the numbers true?
Click to expand...

of course they are; check out the provided cite

let's also look at the fiscal responsibility which resulted when academicians were at the helm of government, rather than business representatives
National-Debt-GDP-2008.gif


it would appear those from the academic world were better able to position the government's fiscal policies than the business leaders during the republican regimes
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
of course they are; check out the provided cite

let's also look at the fiscal responsibility which resulted when academicians were at the helm of government, rather than business representatives
National-Debt-GDP-2008.gif


it would appear those from the academic world were better able to position the government's fiscal policies than the business leaders during the republican regimes
Click to expand...

Interesting that your chart goes to 2008. How does that look through 2010?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom