The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Revolution on May 18, 2012, 01:32:45 AM
-
kpete (34,143 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
Refute This, Republicans!!!
THU MAY 17, 2012 AT 11:41 AM PDT
Refute This, Republicans!
byMets102Follow
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7245/7216956234_d61caa13c7.jpg)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/17/1092512/-Refute-This-Republicans-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002699373
Let's see; from the Daily Kos, and "Remove, and Replace Every "Teapublican."
I think I'd put myself in the group of "Questioning." :-)
-
kaput lies.
Always, DUmies lie.
-
It's wasy to refute when you go back and look at the blog article this was taken from and how the "author" bent the numbers to get the reaults he wanted:
I chose five vital economic signs to grade each party’s performance: real GDP growth, growth in employment, consumer price inflation, the change in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the change in the dollar against the mark and/or euro after 1998. I normalized all the percentage changes to a per annum basis so that they could be easily compared, and I aggregated each party’s data. Thus, the presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton are counted as one 20-year-long presidency, and the same is done for the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush41. GDP growth was measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter. Since presidents are sworn in on January 20th, January was counted as a month for outgoing administrations in the cases of employment and consumer price figures. Stock price and dollar data are measured from January 20th or the last business day before that. Also, since the dollar was fixed, not floating, in the 1960′s, that comparison leaves out the Kennedy/Johnson years and thus comprises just 12 years under Democratic rule.
http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08/19/how-the-us-economy-performed-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/
The part about making certain presidencies one continuous 20 year long presidency is especially telling in how this idiot came to his convoluted numbers.
-
I'm sure if we looked at year to year graphs, we would find the "good" numbers appearing at the end of the Republican presidency and carrying over into the Democratic presidency. After said Democrat has screwed up the country, another Republican takes office and fixes it again, thereby leaving his hard work to benefit the next Democrat again. :-)
-
I'm sure if we looked at year to year graphs, we would find the "good" numbers appearing at the end of the Republican presidency and carrying over into the Democratic presidency. After said Democrat has screwed up the country, another Republican takes office and fixes it again, thereby leaving his hard work to benefit the next Democrat again. :-)
Exactly - the refutation can be made in two words "lagging indicators".
-
Well, let's see.
The first two years of the Reagan presidency (1981-1983) were spent coming out of the hole of the greatest depression since the 1930s; we'd gotten deep into that because of the incompetencies of the Democrat who preceded him.
After which followed the longest uninterrupted growth (no recessions) in the economy in American history, the line on the chart always upward, never dipping.
That is, until the last two years of the Bush presidency (1991-1993), after Vast Teddy and the other Democrats, who controlled Congress, got their job-killing tax increases.
Things were still in a slump the first two years of the Clinton presidency (1993-1995), until the Republicans took Congress, and the economy took off again.
And the economy the first six years of the second Bush presidency (2001-2007) was robust, until the Democrats took control of Congress, when the current recession, depression, began.
The Republicans made substantial gains in the mid-term elections of 2010, but while impressive, still not enough to steer the disastrous economic policies of the Magic One away from the cliff; only to slow the erosion down.
It's reasonable to expect that the first two years of the Romney presidency (2013-2015) are going to be rough, as he and the other Republicans dig us out of this hole.
-
Well, let's see.
The first two years of the Reagan presidency (1981-1983) were spent coming out of the hole of the greatest depression since the 1930s; we'd gotten deep into that because of the incompetencies of the Democrat who preceded him.
After which followed the longest uninterrupted growth (no recessions) in the economy in American history, the line on the chart always upward, never dipping.
That is, until the last two years of the Bush presidency (1991-1993), after Vast Teddy and the other Democrats, who controlled Congress, got their job-killing tax increases.
Things were still in a slump the first two years of the Clinton presidency (1993-1995), until the Republicans took Congress, and the economy took off again.
And the economy the first six years of the second Bush presidency (2001-2007) was robust, until the Democrats took control of Congress, when the current recession, depression, began.
The Republicans made substantial gains in the mid-term elections of 2010, but while impressive, still not enough to steer the disastrous economic policies of the Magic One away from the cliff; only to slow the erosion down.
It's reasonable to expect that the first two years of the Romney presidency (2013-2015) are going to be rough, as he and the other Republicans dig us out of this hole.
You hit the nail on the head Frank!
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002699373
Let's see; from the Daily Kos, and "Remove, and Replace Every "Teapublican."
I think I'd put myself in the group of "Questioning." :-)
The question is, what policies, action or inaction by the federal government led to this? Are Democrat policies making the economy better or worse TODAY?
-
The question is, what policies, action or inaction by the federal government led to this? Are Democrat policies making the economy better or worse TODAY?
The rich bitch the kpete primitive just threw out this stew, hoping it'd look like a steak.
It's just a hodgepodge of miscellaneous numbers, from which much is omitted.
-
"Last 50 years" omits their beloved FDR, and conveniently includes the dot-com boom of which Clinton was the accidental beneficiary (Thanks largely to six years of his Presidency having an opposition Congress that prevented him from taxing it to death), followed by eight years which included the post-9/11 recession (Attributable in large part to Clinton's feckless approach to terrorists) and two wars. Pretty convenient window.
-
IYCDTWBBTWBS :whatever:
-
Even a Lamborghini needs to be started. Republicans add displacement and turbo and start the engine. Liberals enjoy the ride until they feel guilty and slam on the brakes. Lately, however, liberals not only slam on the brakes, but they pour sugar in the gas tank.
-
:lmao: Well that was handily refuted. Didn't even break a sweat.
Statistics. I don't trust a single one unless I calculate it myself.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002699373
Let's see; from the Daily Kos, and "Remove, and Replace Every "Teapublican."
I think I'd put myself in the group of "Questioning." :-)
That is just another liberal making things up again. The only facts he looked at where the ones that fit his agenda. Typical liberal slime ball at work there.
-
Figures lie, and Liars figure. Another reason why being a shapely woman is a handicap.
-
kpete (34,143 posts)
Refute This, Republicans!!!
Kathleen, shouldn't you be doing Kegels and prepping a good dinner for hubby's Friday night fun time instead of reposting stupid shit that can be shot up with two words: lagging indicators (tip o' the hat to Aristotelian)? Gotta stay sharp and be prepared to keep those benefits, little girl.
-
Refute THIS, mofos' :popcorn:
-
Refute THIS, mofos' :popcorn:
That is a pack of lies brought up by a right wing wacko site. /du mode