Nacy P actually just said

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Once again, you simply can't criticize Obama's record of being POTUS and then ignore everything on the previous guys watch, especially considering unprecedented deterioration in government revenue.

Not only that, he also ignores the outcome of alternative approaches. He ignores the history of Republicans racking up debt claiming that deficits don't matter. He ignores what led to the debt and deficit we have today - the failed "starve the beast" theology on the altar of which Republicans still worship. He ignores that the last President that faced a serious economic condition coming into office - that would be the Gipper - got the eventually country out of it by tripling the nation's debt. And that economic crisis wasn't nearly as severe as the one this President was handed. He ignores pretty much anything and everything that makes up the very reality that we live in and hence comes across as, well, quite ignorant.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Once again, you simply can't criticize Obama's record of being POTUS and then ignore everything on the previous guys watch, especially considering unprecedented deterioration in government revenue.

So then you would coincide that you can't give Clinton credit for the boom years without looking at the 12 years of Republican leadership that preceded it right ?

Let's see how the Liberal mind works---- Carter Carter was not his fault --Reagan sucked Reagan sucked Bush 1 sucked-- Clinton waived a magicwand and all was good Bush sucked bush sucked, Obama---All Bush's fault. LOL You guys stop it your killing me.

Not only that, he also ignores the outcome of alternative approaches. He ignores the history of Republicans racking up debt claiming that deficits don't matter. He ignores what led to the debt and deficit we have today - the failed "starve the beast" theology on the altar of which Republicans still worship. He ignores that the last President that faced a serious economic condition coming into office - that would be the Gipper - got the eventually country out of it by tripling the nation's debt. And that economic crisis wasn't nearly as severe as the one this President was handed. He ignores pretty much anything and everything that makes up the very reality that we live in and hence comes across as, well, quite ignorant.

And your ignoring the fact none of them have been President for the last 3.5 years. :dance:

[Póg mo 1,749]

So then you would coincide that you can't give Clinton credit for the boom years without looking at the 12 years of Republican leadership that preceded it right ?

Yes, true enough. Bush I had the good sense to raise taxes and not fight an unfunded war in Iraq. He I believe had the gumption to understand that the US was due a recession and cutting taxes in order to game the system would eventually do more harm than good to the United States. Bush II on other hand wasn't quite so wise IMO.

Let's see how the Liberal mind works---- Carter Carter was not his fault

I don't believe Carter was as bad as republicans would have us believe. The late 70s were a very complicated time to be US president.

--Reagan sucked Reagan sucked Bush 1 sucked-- Clinton waived a magicwand and all was good Bush sucked bush sucked, Obama---All Bush's fault. LOL You guys stop it your killing me.

What ever helps you sleep at night I guess.

And your ignoring the fact none of them have been President for the last 3.5 years. :dance:

It's not like Obama has kind of magical reset button for the US economy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So then you would coincide that you can't give Clinton credit for the boom years without looking at the 12 years of Republican leadership that preceded it right?

You mean "concede", yes?

And your ignoring the fact none of them have been President for the last 3.5 years.

So what is it now? Does Reagan deserve more credit than Clinton for the prosperous 90's as the right has been claiming all along? If that's the case, then how is Obama all of a sudden considered to be operating in some sort of a vacuum? Why was it okay for Reagan to triple the national debt over his two terms, for Bush to double it over his two terms yet all of a sudden the world is coming to an end when Obama is projected to not even double it over two terms? And that despite the fact that the economy and the fiscal situation was in much worse shape in early 2009 than it has been in early 2001 or in early 1981. Can you guys just come up with a consistent argument? You can't have it both ways.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You mean "concede", yes?

So what is it now? Does Reagan deserve more credit than Clinton for the prosperous 90's as the right has been claiming all along? If that's the case, then how is Obama all of a sudden considered to be operating in some sort of a vacuum? Why was it okay for Reagan to triple the national debt over his two terms, for Bush to double it over his two terms yet all of a sudden the world is coming to an end when Obama is projected to not even double it over two terms? And that despite the fact that the economy and the fiscal situation was in much worse shape in early 2009 than it has been in early 2001 or in early 1981. Can you guys just come up with a consistent argument? You can't have it both ways.

No my argument is that whoever is in the Captains chair is responsible win loose or draw. Reagan (debt and immigration withstanding) did some great things in this country. Bush 1 tanked. Clinton deserves credit for his boom and peace years. Bush sucked. Obama sucks as much as bush on steroids.

[Harsh_77 718]

lol...... com on your data stops at 2008.

Plugin data from 2008-2012.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So, if Romney gets elected and things don't magically change in a year or two ... we won't hear people blaming Obama?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, if Romney gets elected and things don't magically change in a year or two ... we won't hear people blaming Obama?

Thing is, things will change over the next couple of years. Moody's came out with a forecast on job creation over the next 4 years based on the President's policies. Guess what? Moody's expects 12 million jobs to be added under Obama. Coincidentally, Mitt pledges to create, well, 12 million jobs over the next 4 years. Bold, ain't it? And it's a goal that falls far short, of course, of the 500K jobs per month Mitt claimed would be normal during recovery.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Thing is, things will change over the next couple of years. Moody's came out with a forecast on job creation over the next 4 years based on the President's policies. Guess what? Moody's expects 12 million jobs to be added under Obama. Coincidentally, Mitt pledges to create, well, 12 million jobs over the next 4 years. Bold, ain't it? And it's a goal that falls far short, of course, of the 500K jobs per month Mitt claimed would be normal during recovery.

:rofl:

I am telling you, in the end Romney is worse than they believe Obama to be...