Fine, you dont trust me, and I certainly dont trust people of Abbotland. Now show me data for GDP beginning and ending for Obama and G.W. Bush from a data source you claim can be trusted. Or you are just talk and no action?
You should look at the numbers, especially before you tell others to look at the numbers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_c...nder-democratic-vs.-republican-presidents.pdf When you look behind the averages, the differences are even more profound. When Obama was sworn into office the economy was on the brink of collapse and Republicans to a man refused to do anything about it. The economy was shrinking at an annualized rate of 10%; we were losing nearly a million jobs a month; and the deficit exceeded one trillion dollars. Circumstances were dire, and with Republicans refusing to do anything to help save the economy and doing everything to hurt the economy, the outcome was uncertain. Obama and his band of democrats turned an economy that was shrinking at an annualized 10% and shedding nearly a million jobs a month into an economy that was steadily adding between 100,000 and 250,000 jobs a month year after year, and steadily growing with virtually zero inflation. That's a good thing for most people, but for partisans like you, who are either ignorant of the facts or deliberately choose to ignore them, it's a bad thing. Even your man The Donald admits the economy does better under Democrats than Republicans. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
From your own sources, looking at the numbers: Bush II has GDP growth of 1.8 and Obama at 1.78, Bush II Median Income averages between (55,376+57,790)/2=56,583 and Obama's Median Income averages between (56,516+55,376)/2=55,946 Obama does worse than Bush on both.
You are grasping at straws comrade. I think you need to reread what I posted, this time more carefully. Do you really think a difference of .02% makes Bush II better...seriously? And you are ignoring the fact fact that the economy Obama inherited from his Republican predecessor, i.e. Bush II, was in free-fall and shrinking at an annualized rate of 10% and shedding nearly a million jobs a month. The averages gloss over The Great Recession. Obama and his Democrats inherited the Great Recession (2007-2009), the biggest recession since the Great Depression, from his Republican predecessor and he and his fellow Democrats ended it no thanks to Republicans. But you don't want to talk about that. For the last few decades, Democrats have inherited bad economies from their Republican predecessors and have handed their Republican successors a better economy. Median income has grown under Democratic presidents, and it has shrunk under Republican presidents. That's in the numbers comrade. Facts matter comrade.
joepistole it is no point arguing about a recession that youreyes refuses to accept as even happening. He doesn't understand that the first and foremost task Obama faced was to put a brake on a seriously failing economy. If all he achieved in his presidency of 2 terms was allowing most Americans to keep the jobs that they were threatened with losing, then that alone was and is, in itself a huge achievement. Yet popular it is not... For youreyes information ex prime minster Tony Abbot also exhibited severe paranoia and needed to be removed from office before he really did make a huge mistake. If you want proof of Abbott's disorder let me know and I'll post it in another thread perhaps. Unfortunately we ended up with a fractured government but at least it still functions. From all accounts Abbott has since recovered somewhat and may yet make a comeback to the leadership.
As an aside: When confronted with huge numbers of illegal boat people asylum seekers and messages like this one it is not surprising that the target and his family may become a little fearful
There is also an artificial short lived and very costly growth with subsequent crash ( Bush2) and a more steady reliable and sustainable growth with out the crash...(Obama) Lord knows what's in store with Trumps economic plans...if one could even call them that...maybe he will burn the USA worse than the great depression this time round... ( re: boom-crash cycles) If you include the full cost of the crash in Bush 2 figures you will find out the real value of Bush's administration. Add to that the cost of the war in IRAQ .... and wow ... have fun with that one...
The way the data is presented is not proper . It should be taken into the account the war period , Vietnam , Serbia, Korea
Who says it didn't and why is that important? Are you suggesting wars not be included? Why do you not mention the Bush II wars? Bush started and fought 2 wars almost for the entire duration of his presidency. The Vietnam War began with Eisenhower and his introduction of US troops in Vietnam. Bush I invaded Panama, and was responsible for The Gulf War. Why did you not mention those wars? Bush II also militarily intervened in Somalia. Why didn't you mention that intervention? The facts are solid, clear, and proper comrade. The economy does better under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations. Even your beloved Comrade Trump agrees. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are grasping at straws comrade.
Were you alive when Jimmy Carter become president, at the end of Vietnam war ? The unemployment hit 10 %
Yes. I think Carter was a good and decent man, honest and well intentioned. He sold his peanut farm due to potential conflict of interest. A peanut farm.
Viet Nam Mr. fact : who was the president ? Once elected, Diem immediately began a large-scale purge of Communists in the country. The purge led to a division between Diem's South Vietnam and a strong insurgency in North Vietnam. A coup killed Diem in 1963, leading the United States to commit military forces to the country. The war formally ended when Communist forces captured Saigon in 1975. South Vietnamese President Duong Van Minh surrendered on April 30, 1975. I had some respect for Sr. Bush , but none for his moron war monger son. The Panama incident Noriega was Regan , you forget mentioning invasion of Granada and Somalia . Those were peanuts war, I grant you since Gulf war economy runs well, we are dropping our tanks and many metallic item as scrap , so we can produce new one , and now with Ukrainian problem and arming Poland and the Baltic nations, oh I forgot the accidental equipping ISSI and Hamas, that will keeping our economy going. Thanks to the democrats.
I was; I lived through that period of time, and your point is? Actually, the Vietnam War had ended when Carter became POTUS. Carter became POTUS in 1997. Below is a graph of the unemployment rate: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And you have a point? Jimmy Carter inherited something called stagflation from his Republican predecessor. The US economy was reeling oil supply shocks which occurred under the previous Republican administration. People waited for hours to refill gasoline tanks. The nation resorted to gasoline rationing. It was a difficult time. In response, and in order to prevent a recession, the US Federal Reserve flushed the economy with cash, and that created inflation and the investment problems associated with inflation. If you look at the above chart, you will note that the unemployment rate went down under Carter and peaked during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
I believe he was the most honest President . The helicopter crash during attempted rescue, was a disaster for his Presidency
Carter? another warmongering president...known for Iran hostage crisis, the 1979 energy crisis, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. No wonder he lost to Reagan
Seriously....? How is an attempted rescue of American hostages in Iran war mongering? Carter wasn't responsible for the Iranian Revolution. The revolution began before Carter had taken office, and the seeds of the Iranian were sown in the Eisenhower administration, a Republican administration. Now how you can reasonably conclude that Carter was responsible for it or the resulting energy crisis much less claim that these events are proofs Carter was a war monger is perplexing. What does Three Mile Island, a nuclear accident, have to do with war mongering? Nothing, it has nothing to do with war mongering. Three Mile Island was a nuclear accident which occurred 2 months after Carter was sworn into office. It was well managed and for the most part well contained. Now what could Carter have done 2 months into his presidency to cause the Three Mile Island comrade? You my dear comrade are throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks. Now I wasn't happy with Carter''s presidency or how he handled the failed Iranian hostage rescue, but that's not an excuse for revisionist history. Now how the hell is the Soviet, i.e. Russian, invasion of a wasteland, i.e. Afghanistan, the result of anything Carter did and why was it a bad thing for the US? The Soviet invasion occurred during Carter's first year as POTUS. How does the Soviet Invasion make Carter a "war monger" as you have alleged? It doesn't. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a long and costly war for the Soviet Union and it is one of the events which ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Carter lost to Reagan because Reagan ran a better campaign. You are making shit up again comrade.
Given that it seems certain rules have been utterly forgotten... If you are going to make ridiculous claims about past or current administrations, it would behoove you to have at least SOME semblance of facts to back them up with.
