Democratic Presidents outperform Republicans in 11 of 12 economic measures

[Thepaindispenser]

Assuming their numbers are correct which is a big assumption, their book is completely worthless. JFK's fiscal policies are much closer to Romney than Obama. Is Bill Clinton supposed to get credit for the fake Internet bubble economy that he was lucky enough that it blew up after he left office? Does that mean we should have elected Carter over Reagan despite stagflation and a recession? Should we ignore that Obama has grown the largest debt in the history of the country or that he has presided over the worst recovery in 65 years? Should FDR get credit for the WW II economy or even worse should LBJ get credit for the Vietnam War economy? Like I said that book is worthless.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

that book is worthless.

That figures. Ri(di)ot's worthless opinions have to come from someplace.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

That figures. Ri(di)ot's worthless opinions have to come from someplace.

Useless post only meant to be insulting troll duly noted.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Assuming their numbers are correct which is a big assumption, their book is completely worthless.

Assuming the earth is really measurably round, which is a big assumption, the theory that the earth isn't flat is completely worthless. As I said, completely worthless.

Because I said so.

Worthless.

Completely.



Ah, yes - taking numbers you haven't read, from a book not yet published, and declaring it "worthless". What a magical mind you have regarding politics and the economy.

[Thepaindispenser]

Yes taking numbers from a book that you haven't fact checked and is yet to be published and then declaring that people should vote a certain way is definitely worthless. Now actually try and address one thing in my post.

[Danzig]

i'd imagine that when the economy does well it does so in spite of the politicians, not because of them. there's no need for anyone to help along the charade that government actually helps businesses in any purely positive way.

and it's funny how quickly all those pols disavow any responsibility whatsoever when the stuff goes south.

[Thepaindispenser]

Excellent point Danzig, which is another reason why this book is worthless.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'd imagine that when the economy does well it does so in spite of the politicians, not because of them. there's no need for anyone to help along the charade that government actually helps businesses in any purely positive way.

and it's funny how quickly all those pols disavow any responsibility whatsoever when the stuff goes south.

Thinking the economic performance of this country is independent from our Congress and government is completely absurd, and disproven by the past two centuries plus of our country's existence.

But this book looks at the facts of the past 80 years, excluding Obama (he's not included). And the measurable facts, the actual results, show that 11 of 12 economic indicators perform better under Dem Presidents than GOP.

Damn facts - they do seem to have a "liberal" bias, huh?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Yes taking numbers from a book that you haven't fact checked and is yet to be published and then declaring that people should vote a certain way is definitely worthless. Now actually try and address one thing in my post.

Try hard and concentrate here - I didn't say anything about voting, the author did, and the author, you'll note, was surprised at the result, as he thought it would be different.

Try to think, and not use just your lizard brain of kneejerk hate - why do you assume your concerns were not addressed in the data?

Which of the charts listed in the article - the actual numbers listed - make you think your concerns were not addressed, and why? All those numbers are public domain. Give us actual numbers that show differently than these two authors, and support your contention their numbers are wrong.

This isn't opinion - this is measurable numbers. 12 economic indicators. Not opinion. So stick with the facts and defend your casual "worthless" comment, if you want any respect for your opinion.

[Thepaindispenser]

Just a quick glance at two charts shows how stupid and worthless the charts are. Our trade deficit has gotten worse with each successive President and if Obama was included he would be last, so that shows absolutely nothing.

However the most embarrassing for an Obama worshipper like you is that he would be third for highest average unemployment rate right behind Hoover and FDR, the two Presidents during the Great Depression. That alone is a good enough argument that he should be tossed to the curb in November 2012.

Any more questions Riot?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Just a quick glance at two charts shows how stupid and worthless the charts are.

Don't do a quick glance, do an analysis - what is wrong about them? You're the one saying they are "worthless". Why? Convince me. You have valid reasons or not?

However the most embarrassing for an Obama worshipper like you is that he would be third for highest average unemployment rate right behind Hoover and FDR, the two Presidents during the Great Depression. That alone is a good enough argument that he should be tossed to the curb in November 2012.

Yeah, yeah, Blah, blah, blah - nice distraction try, but we're discussing the charts you said were worthless. And Obama performance isn't included in the book, rocket scientist.

Didn't you even READ the article you are pontificating about?

We're waiting for your expertise to explain why.

Any more questions Riot?

Yeah - why can't you put your money where your mouth is, and defend your statement? You've got no facts. You've got nothing but mouth. You think that repeating "they are stupid and worthless" somehow magically makes it so. LOL - no. That's not how reality and measurable facts work. That's fantasy. That makes your deep analysis "worthless".

You defining a measurable fact as "stupid" is the nonsensical, idiotic reply of a five-year-old.

Any more questions, Sockpuppet? If your only contribution to discussing political issues of the day is "Obama sucks", please, go back and bother the other threads, because you're useless here. It would be nice to have some real political discussions about the actual state of the country. Not rants by haters, which are useless and worthless.

[Thepaindispenser]

Nice try Ri(do)t, it is a fact that Obama has the third highest unempolyment, it is not rocket science just a simple fact.

Only a true sheep like you takes the charts at face value. Carter is listed as 4th for least amount of time in a recession. Yeah Riot stagflation and long gas lines are signs of a strong economy. Not even far left liberal nut jobs to the right of you try and spin that Carter presided over a good economy.

How about FDR at number 3 for the least amount of time in a recession, yet from 1932 until the war economy saved FDR's disastrous policies, the country was in the Great Depression. The term Recession was meaningless considering how far the economy fell.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see one original thought from your teeny brain on why we should take the charts at face value. In fact, I am still waiting for an original thought from on any subject.