republican response to these figures?

You know the right wingers dont let the silly facts get in the way of their hatred for Obama. They want "their" country back. They prefer slogans such as Obamacare, smaller govt, lower taxes, stop bailouts(never mind the govt is getting their money back plus interest), Obama hates white people(G Beck), Obama is a socialist and so on and so on......

They hate everything Obama does, but when you ask them "specifically" what they would do,you wont get an answer. They know things are getting better, but they want that black man out of office as soon as possible.

Are you a L I B E R A L ???????

Hey There wrote:

Are you a L I B E R A L ???????

What difference does it make?

Rational Economics wrote:

I'll assume that you're talking about the free market, low taxation, limited government philosophies that the left usually ascribes to Republicans.......What these statitics of yours really show is the failure of everything other than free market, low taxation, limited government philosophy.

But this is precisely the formula that Bush et al followed and look what happened. He took a post-Clinton economy that was in surplus and totally tanked it, leaving it in the deepest hole since the great depression. Now, Republicans (and voters with exceedingly short memories) are blaming the current administration for not digging us out fast enough.

Under Clinton (criticized for high taxation) roughly 23 million private sector jobs were created. Under Bush (the tax-cut king), about 1 million private sector jobs were created.....not to mention an unjustified and economy-draining war.

Bush was the worst US president in recent history (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter). Why would anyone want to vote for a return of such dismally failed policies?

hmmmmmmmm wrote:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/29/914834/-Four-questions-for-Republicans...and-four-answers-for-undecided-voters

saw this on a thread somewhere...just curious as to how republicans explain these figures while still advocating for their philosophies

(not bashing on republicans and undecided on voting, legitimately curious in the opposite perspective)

Your link to four "facts" shows what is wrong with political discourse today. You try and show some real gotcha statistics (kids remember statistics don't mean anything on their own without context) and then just in case that doesn't work you have fact #4, "Which party's candidate for speaker will campaign this weekend with a Nazi reenactor who dressed up in a SS uniform?"

ie. If you don't believe my statistics, just remember the Republicans are Nazis.

You undermine your whole argument in my mind with #4. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If not, I guess call people Nazi's or racists or something else.

+++++++++++++++++

Well, most don't. This year people hate the democrats more than they hate the republicans. It's been a series of protest votes - 2008, 2010.

Hey, unemployment is 10% when recent memory of unemployment is 5% - no ruling party can survive that.

What this guy said.

discredit wrote:

Your link to four "facts" shows what is wrong with political discourse today. You try and show some real gotcha statistics (kids remember statistics don't mean anything on their own without context) and then just in case that doesn't work you have fact #4, "Which party's candidate for speaker will campaign this weekend with a Nazi reenactor who dressed up in a SS uniform?"

ie. If you don't believe my statistics, just remember the Republicans are Nazis.

You undermine your whole argument in my mind with #4. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If not, I guess call people Nazi's or racists or something else.

Clinton was in office during the computer and internet boom. Anyone could have been president and created a surplus.

I doubt this is true. I am guessing with Bush's Capital gain tax cut, that we wouldn't have had a surplus. But yeah in general president doesn't have a ton of direct effect on the economy short term.

problem child wrote:

Clinton was in office during the computer and internet boom. Anyone could have been president and created a surplus.

A picture is worth 1000 words, even if someone here doesn't like it.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/september/making-bush-look-like-a-piker

Try to get the full picture. In 2007, total gov revenue was %5.237 trillion. In 2008, it shrunk by $500 billion to $4.767 trillion. In 2009, it shrunk even more to $4.325, down $900 billion from its high. In 2010 it is projected to be $4.450 trillion. If you compare these figures to the deficit, you can see that much of the increase in the deficit has been a result of the government collecting "less of your money" not from it spending more. The deficit is bad because the economy is bad.

Interesting, while I was reading this a campaign ad popped up for J. McGovern (D) who's running for re-election against M. Lamb (R via Yeshiva U) onscreen in this District.

Don't know which one scares me more.

CSPAN ran a show with two Historians who were speaking with Brian Lamp. One of the Historians, I belive the late David Brinkley's son, mentioned the possiblity of a Obama-Hillary ticket with Joe "Gaffd Machine" Biden, moving to State.

The question beggared was "Who would the GOP run against them?". The really interesting and Macchiavellian question was "Would the Dems throw the '10 midterms, for a solid shot at keeping the white house in '12?".

Schemes within schemes.

Well, there was never really any surplus, he used accounting tricks to make it appear so. What made it help appear that there was a surplus was the end of the Cold War, ending of billions of spent dollars. The only reason there was even a chance that accounting tricks could show a surplus was that we won the cold war. So thank All the presidents from Eisenhower through Bush 1 for that. Clinton is the reason we have a terrible market and a terrible housing industry.

Clinton signed into law, a bill making all banks and lending agencies give loans to whoever wanted a home. The banks had no say, and lost money. Lots of money. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac warned Clinton about this and he essentially said "Eh, oh well."

Bush might not have been the best president, but he was a lot better than Clinton.

Obama's presidential term so far has generated 3.3 Trillion in debt, and 35 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Jobless rates have continued to go down, and only went up briefly as census workers were hired. They are now fired. True jobless rate is at over 18%

"There is a pretty broad consensus among economists that the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do (stabilize the economy and restore growth) which is also backed up by economic indicators. It was not meant to cause an artificial boom, just to create the conditions that would allow the private sector to rebound."

There is not a broad consensus. Many, many economists think the stimulus was much too hastily written and shelled out and was simply a band aid on a flood. I can't count the amount of distinguished economists who have written that the stimulus will blow up in our face.

Not that I believe THOSE economists any more than the ones you site. Just saying a "broad consensus" is pretty off base.

Bush was the worst US president in recent history

funny then how the FY2009 budget message is written by GWB:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/message.pdf

Liberals all have their heads up their collective boyfriends arses. That is why they ignore the Congressional shortcomings and blame the GOP presidents. Hence, Clinton benefitted from a GOP Congress

Well, I’m not an American, but I see here that US debt is $3 trillion up on Obama’s watch.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html

Also - Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

Gramms bill repealing the depression era banking laws (and yeah clinton signed it) had a much larger effect on causing this recession.As far as blaming CRA, you need to do some research. Banks were not forced to make subprime loans. Something like 3/4s of the banks issuing subprime loans were not governed by CRA at all. The offered subprime loans because they could make a ton of money. Less than 5% of subprime loans were CRA. CRA loans have performed the same as non CRA loans. The banks messed up there evaluation of risk. The didn't factor in the possibility of a nation wide housing bubble were prices would drop nationally by 10%+.