realifedad saidI'll remind you that Obama enjoyed the first two years of his term with control of BOTH houses of Congress. The fact that he could do nothing to improve the economy shows that not even the Democrats were willing to support his mismanagement of the economic situation (when both Reagan and Clinton faced the opposite yet still managed to put in place policies that made dramatic economic improvements during the second half of their first terms). This guy has been completely incompetent when it comes to matters of the economy and the ways of Washington, instead implementing policies that no one (including a majority of the American people) thought should be a priority when the economy was the biggest threat.
The simple and very truthfull answer is that Obama's jobs record was better in one year than the Bush record over a period of 8 years. Obama was handed by Bush the worst US economic situation since the great depression.
Here's some facts about Democratic versus Republican records
DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS--------
1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,000--Republicans 856,000. WOW
5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months. WOW.
------------------Each “significant” one was under a R president-------------------------
7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R
8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats. WOW
9.Income Growth—1948-2005--each increased (percentage wise)under D presidents over R presidents by these numbers-- Quintiles--(Top-10%)--(2nd-71%)-(third-127%)-(fourth-212%)-(fifth-550%) WOW
source--TimothyNoah-- Nov. 2010 in Slate magazine
Question—Why would a working person vote for a Republican for President?
I concede that your explaination regarding Bain Capitol does indeed make sense but I was guilty of ignorance on the subject not being stupid. LOL
Now beyond that, why would you vote Republican in light of the above facts and all that is being pointed out here on RJ that the Republican Christian Fundi's and TBagger 'PARTNERS' are pushing on that Party ? Aren't you in the least concerned about these bible thumpers influence on the repubs swing dangerously to the right ?
That swing means that if you vote Republican you are partnering with forces that are hell bent on doing harm to you as a gay man, to the elderly, the disabled, the poor and many a minority of Latino background all in the name of their version of 'god' and bringing their country 'back to that god', back from their boogyment, fascists, socialists, islam, the UN and sheria law. LOL. These people you as a gay man voting republican are partnering with, are also hell bent on taking money from the above lower income groups to pay for more money being pushed the way of the Wealthy, whom by the way did not create jobs as Bush promised, or his 8 year record of job creation wouldn't have been so pathetic
As I've written many a time, we will come far closer to losing freedoms under the Christian Fundi backed Republicans than ever will happen under the supposed 'leftists'.
Consider the above before pushing republicans
I appreciate that you've taken a more debate-like tact to this discussion, and I apologize for calling your earlier statement about Bain stupid.
I can neither confirm nor deny the figures you have noted above. But my background in economics (it was one of my majors) tells me that there is a lagging effect to the implementation of economic policy and the noticeable effect on economic conditions, so it's difficult to say whether the economic conditions were due to the Administration in office or the one prior to it.
Let's take a look at more recent history, as my desire to debate back to 1921 is negligible. People have argued for years that it was the pro-business and tax reduction policies of the Reagan and Bush Sr. Administrations that gave Clinton the runway to have such enormous economic growth in the latter part of his first term and for most of his second. It also shouldn't come of news to anyone that the economy was ALREADY headed into recession when George W took office, as we were seeing weakening GDP figures and other statistics that showed the economy to be slowing. W's efforts to reduce taxes across all classes was in an effort to stimulate the economy by putting money back into the hands of consumers, particularly because the U.S. government was running a surplus. We had begun to see improvement in the economy before the world was upturned by the events of September 11th.
Now, I can already hear the argument that what I have said above can be used to argue that the economic malaise we find ourselves in cannot be blamed on Obama, because, as you've said, he inherited a mess. My problem with Obama is that instead of focusing his efforts on fixing the economy by working with Republicans and business leaders in the U.S. to find ways to put Americans back to work. The only economic policy he had was that of "stimulus", which most economist would argue are only short-term solutions with none of the long-term impact that will encourage businesses to hire more workers. Instead he focused on Obamacare, a monumental project that did not carry the support of the American people (I do not recall the figures, but I know that well less than 50% of the population wanted him to mess with healthcare when the economy was in such tatters). He forged ahead regardless, serving to undermine further the business confidence that we needed to get companies hiring again. They couldn't understand the impact that Obamacare would have on their bottom lines, so it pulled them further into retreat.
The second focus of Obama's Administration has been regulation, imposing upon the financial sector the Dodd-Frank bill, the impacts of which most financial institutions STILL don't understand. This served to further weaken the financial sector which needed stability in order to pull us out of the recession. We needed banks to lend to businesses, but instead they pulled back as a result of the uncertainty surrounding Dodd-Frank.
You may recall that it was Clinton
who repealed Glass-Steagal, regulatory policy that had been put in place after the Great Depression to avoid much of the mess that resulted in the financial meltdown and created these banks that were too big to fail. And it was Barney Frank himself who scoffed at Republican attempts to pull back the reins on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lending policies had become so lax that they set the groundwork for the housing bubble.
We needed Obama to open his arms to the business community and ask its leaders what he and the Democratic-controlled Congress could do to get them to hire again. Instead, he enacted business-busting policies and demonized those on Wall Street and big business in general. He's proven himself completely inept at managing the economy or dealing with Washington.
So for the sake of ALL of us, I'm voting for Romney in November. I disagree with many of the social policies of the Republican party, but the risk of anything that could get enacted without a super-majority in Congress pales in comparison to the damage that Obama could continue to do to the economy. Our ability to marry won't matter if we can't put food on the table and people are rioting in the streets. And if you think that's paranoia, just look at what's going on in Europe. The U.S. has historically shown