Of course! The president has no control over the economy where things go poorly and he has a (R) after his name.
But when things go poorly and there’s a (D) after his name, well that motherfucker needs to get his boot off the throats of America’s small businesses - like BofA and Boeing!
-Joe
And, given that more jobs have been created in the U.S., net, during Obama’s 2.5 years as President than during Bush’s 8 years, the evidence of this is…?
Yeah, businesses aren’t hiring now because of uncertainty about something that might happen a few years down the road. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that most American households simply don’t have much money to buy things right now, or are saving rather than spending just in case their jobs are next on the chopping block.
Pass right by the simple and direct explanation in favor of something completely abstract, indirect, and theoretical.
Hell, Ike, JFK, LBJ, and even freakin’ Nixon were more “anti-business” by any realistic measure than Obama is. And that’s just the ones in my lifetime. I’m sure FDR and Truman would be in there too, as well as Teddy Roosevelt.
The assorted GOP candidates, Huntsman possibly excepted, are in a dead heat. They’d all sign everything that a GOP Congress passed. It would be pretty much open season on everything.
My expectation is that if the GOP wins the Presidency, they’ll also win the Senate. And if they win the Presidency and the Senate, they’ll dispatch the filibuster and pass whatever they want by simple majorities. It’s hard to say just how bad it could get, but the important point is that it really won’t much matter which Republican is in the White House.
I’ve got to say, Randall Terry would make a pretty terrible President.
Keep the personal insults out of this forum.
You are right; sorry hodagg.
The above is laughable.
He’s largely single-issue on abortion, on other issues like a good Catholic, he could be fairly liberal on economics.
We can divide the Republican candidates into those reasonably sane if misguided (Romney and Huntsman,) those with policies that will screw up the country (the rest) and those who are just incompetent or total buffoons - Bachmann, Paul, Cain, Santorum.
Bush the Younger at least had advisers who knew what they were doing (even if they were evil) but these guys don’t. They’d be totally out of their depth, and what is worse, they wouldn’t know it. Palin is in this category also. Look at Bush’s non-reaction to the warning about 911. He did better at the end, during the financial crisis, when he let those with a clue handle it.
Most of these clowns would drive us right into a depression.
So what you are saying is Bill already has her submissive and on her knees.
Not voting for Obama because of this is like saying “I’m not happy with the amount of criminals the police are catching, so I’ll fire them and just give the badges and guns to the criminals themselves”.
I will, sort of. I see the country being the most fucked if Obama or Bachmann win. His policies do little to help the country, and she’s a nutjob.
Cite, please? Wiki disagrees with you. Unless you’re trying to say that even though we have 2.4 million fewer jobs than at the start of Obama’s term he’s somehow created more than a million jobs (so -3,400,000 + 1,000,000= -2,400,000)? Create generally means having more than you started with, not merely gaining back a fraction of the jobs lost during your term.
Yeah, I think Fear Itself mucked up the quote. The one I always heard was that Obama created more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in 8 years, which I believe is an accurate statement. It completely ignores the job losses of 2009 of course.
Considering that the temporary census jobs, hundreds of thousands of them, count towards “jobs created” (see any jobs report for May of 2010) despite only lasting a few weeks, it’s hardly surprising considering 2010 was a census year and no census was taken during Bush’s time in office.
Edit: look here http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/17/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-more-jobs-created-obamas-first-y/
The Obama programs also saved a lot of jobs. Just counting new jobs is bad analysis.
Ah yes, the mythical “saved jobs” that no economists have figured out how to quantify. There’s nothing in that quote about saved jobs, though, just a lie about ones created.
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152201/3_reality-based_charts_your_right-wing_relatives_will_have_a_hard_time_ignoring/
These charts clearly show the difference between the Bush admin and Obama’s. It also shows that the bleating of the rightys is totally misplaced as always.
I’m gonna go the other way entirely and say the worst would be Romney. The others are so outright crazy that they would waste their time with shit no one will pass. Romney, OTOH, sounds much more reasonable, and has more actual chance of getting crazy-shit republican ideas through the congress.
Goodness! How can you link to such garbage with a straight face? If you cannot see the problem with these graphs in 20 seconds then, well, what’s the sense in arguing?
You’ve got that backwards, yorick73. If one could see the problem in 20 seconds, then there’d be no need to argue. But given that folks apparently can’t, maybe we need someone to point out the problems.
Goodness! I looked at them for well over 20 seconds and couldn’t see anything particularly wrong with them…except perhaps that they don’t tell the entire story. But charts and graphs never do, and these weren’t intended to.
Suppose you could enlighten us?
SS