Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
174
Tree
ID: 57842011 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 02:24
"we have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them."
Thinking back on the previous debate it strikes me that we've got an administration supposedly digging us out of a depression, for whom the idea that resumes come in binders is a novel and funny idea that never occurred to them.
speak for yourself. oh, wait, you are. especially since so far you've only commented on domestic issues, when the overall debate was on foreign policy.
this was not a knockout, but it was a pretty thorough smackdown.
Asking Democrats to fix a broken economy is like asking rodeo clowns to build a rocketship
I'm sure this goes over well at RedState but here we' do more fact-based than faith-based political commentary. Which is probably why you appear to be having so much trouble in the other thread regarding Obama and his "cousin."
In 3 years Obama has paid down about $300 billion off the deficit, which is $300 billion more than Bush. Clinton, of course, balanced the budget (and I give plenty of credit to the GOP then for working with him on it).
Romney clearly wants a re-do over the Bush Administration. But that is exactly what got us into this fiscal trouble. Americans aren't going to be so stupid as to think just doing it again (including spending $4 trillion on the military that they neither want nor need) will work just because this time we got a guy who apparently has no political core.
Your posts these days seriously read like they were pulled from comment threads at conservative web sites. There appears to be no real research behind them. You know the full story of the binders, yes? There were no actual resumes, then were done by an outside group (MassGAP) for both the candidates that year in Massachusetts, and they were done for senior level positions. And they were done while this country was still doing well--only a year or so into Bush's first term (i.e., not during a recession).
In 3 years Obama has paid down about $300 billion off the deficit - PD
Bullfeathers. I notice there was no link on that fantasy.
BTW if Romney intends to be a compassionate conservative ala Bush, ie. give in to the liberal wishlist despite talking the conservative talk, we will indeed be in for more budget busting. Tea Party congressmen had better ride him to insure he doesn't. --- I know how the moonbats on MSNBC carried on about binders like they were some kind of republican kink instead of honest research into qualified candidates.
I know which party added days of red tape and mountains of taxes to every small businessman's week. I know who is the deliberate enemy of business and prosperity.
I think paid down is bit a misleading term, since nothing has been paid, spent less would be more accurate.
re 186: i think you can read two things for those links either a) they show nothing of relevance or b)the presidential party probably has little impact on the economy. I guess either make your point that the GOP is no better than the dems on the economy.
I think sarge's point was that Dems are better for the economy, not that they are the same. Certainly there appears to be a consumer and investor confidence which has a historic co-relational existence with Democratic administrations. Confidence is a dicey thing, of course, but we need not examine how tightly those things exist to show that Baldwin's premise is false--merely showing how history says otherwise is enough.
#192: That might be accurate, I think, though we should remember that the comparison is also with the previous budget projections (including those going back quite a bit). And honest reporting requires the recognition that Bush's budgets didn't have the Iraq was on them (it was off-budget, and "paid" for through emergency appropriations). So I tend to think that the numbers are actually a little better (more accurate now, in other words).
First Boldwin gives PD a hard time for not having a link... then sarge gives great links from reputable sources to illustrate his point and those aren't good enough apparently. So maybe PD realized its not worth the effort to post links that Boldwin would dismiss anyway. You should start posting links that say one thing but then go to Nickelodeon website or something ridiculous just to see if he actually reads them.
or boikin, when it rains on the 3rd wed of Mar. Do you have a point, or are you just being contentious?
Economic policy, is set by the Pres. History shows us, that Democratic policies show a markedly improved performance vs Republican policies. Now, you want to dispute that? Fine, find relevant facts, not meaningless anecdotes.
classy... Conservative political pundit Ann Coulter called President Obama a "retard" after his debate Monday night with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
In a Twitter post moments after the 90-minute event in Boca Raton, Fla., Miss Coulter said, "I highly approve of Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard."
Now, now. The point is that calling someone "retard" is wrong. Wrong for them. Wrong for us. Let's not claim that Republicans are wrong in how they do politics, then take up their antics when a fat target comes along.
Sarge, what time frame are you looking at? In the last 40 years, we are on our 3rd Dem President? The economy was great under Clinton, but awful under Carter. I'm not including Obama, but in general you would have to say that economy has not done well (I don't blame him for that.)
To say that the economy is under the control of the President is laughable at best. That is even truer today than in the past, due to the interdependencies of the global economy.
Re: 202 My biggest hope is that after this election, the Rep starts to marginalize the radical right, not promote them as the baseline.
Essentially, Republicans looked around when Obama was sworn in and saw political opportunity. They had lost the White House and faced steep Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. In a way, this made them weak; they had no power to advance their own agenda. But it also gave them strength; they had considerable power to stall Obama’s agenda, and with economic anxiety rampant, it seemed logical to assume voters would blame the ruling party if things didn’t turn around quickly.
The result is that Republicans devoted themselves not to constructively criticizing Democratic proposals, crafting feasible alternatives, and accepting olive branches from the administration but instead to cranking up the hysteria and treating virtually every Obama initiative as a step toward socialism. They matched this with legislative obstruction, tying up scores of nominations, forcing a record number of filibusters, and forcing Democrats to pass their agenda on party-line votes.
A Romney win, signals the electorate that blame, is more valuable than credit. Elect Romney, give him a majority in the House and the Senate, then dont be surprised if the Dems make the GOP record nr of filibusters, look like a warm-up session. Romney, could find himself fortunate to pass gas, because his legislation could go nowhere. And the electorate, would have only itself to blame.
It's just a matter of fact. I know where the next unnecessary piece of red tape in my way is going to come from. They are going to generate another unnecessary form for another unnecessary public employee to check off. They are going to employ another heartless inflexible martinet to screw with me. They are going to tie one hand behind my back and limit my options. They are going to cut off the next wrung in the ladder above me. They are going to make sure that the next 6K I earn entirely disappears in taxes.
They are going to make every villain in every media vehicle look just like me. He's a man, he's the sum of all evils. He's a businessman, he's the sum of all evils. He's white, he's the sum of all evils. He's christian, he's the sum of all evils. He's a loyal family man, he's the oppressor, the dufus, the boring, the blind, you name it.
I know who cannot wait to get in my way as a businessman and just a regular ambitious american family man and ruin it for me.
Well, if you want to go through life blaming everyone else for your own sad, pathetic, failures instead of looking in the mirror in the morning, that's your business, but those of us on Planet Earth know you're full of it.
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart….
Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats. (source)
There are so many factors Sarge's analysis misses that it's difficult to know where to start. Republicans always have to replenish the military after every Dem administration ignores the military. Military spending is not particularly good for the economy, tho it does beat being conquered. Getting to spend the peace dividends that Republican administrations earn is what I'd call a lagging indicator. Squandering money blowing up bubbles is something Dems are great at but tho they help their short-term numbers, devastates the country longterm.
The class gradient of income growth under Republican presidents is roughly similar in election years and non-election years, with income growth at the 95th percentile exceeding growth at the 20th percentile by about 1.5 percentage points. However, average growth at every income level has been about 2 percentage points higher in presidential election years than in non-election years. Whether through political skill or pure luck, post-war Republican presidents have regularly produced robust income growth in the run-up to presidential elections.
In stark contrast, Democratic presidents have produced much less income growth in presidential election years than in non-election years. These differences, too, are on the order of 2 percentage points, with real incomes at all levels growing by about 3 percent in non-election years but only about 1 percent (and actually falling at the top of the income distribution) in presidential election years. As a result, families at every income level have experienced much 22 more election-year income growth under Republican presidents than under Democratic presidents. Even families at the 20th percentile of the income distribution have seen about twice as much election-year income growth under Republican presidents (2.1 percent) as under Democratic presidents (1.0 percent); the corresponding figures in non-election years are .1 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively.
Which is mostly interesting that in election years typically years with little legislation the economy does this best which would indicated, that like I said before, neither party has much control.
stocks are better under Dems, corporate profits are better, national debt rises more slowly, median household income is higher, unemployment is lower, GDP is higher; by every economic indicator you can point to, we do better under a Dem administration than a Rep one. EVERY single one of those measures, is more favorable under Dem than Rep. And your answer, is defense spending?!?!?!?!?!?
Sarge, I don't even know where to begin. If your recent economic pronouncements were correct Greece would even now be leading the world as the shining example of how to run a country.
< If your recent economic pronouncements were correct...
IF?!?!?!?! Its a matter of historic record. It is raining here in Weaverville, CA right now. When I say tomorrow, it rained yesterday, there is no need for you to wonder IF I am correct. It will be a matter of record. So to, with the results indicated above.
I never said he paid down the national debt. I said, as did MITH, that e has reduced the annual deficit. My references above, show that the overall debt grows more slowly under Dems, historically, than under Reps. (Obamas data set, is too new to be included. Indeed, most references dont show GWBs 2nd term and some dont show his 1st, because the studies were conducted before it was available. I would however predict a 2016 national debt of 20 trillion under Obama and 22 trillion under Romney)