Where exactly did I type that I am a Libertarian or a '**********'? I am not going to waste my time discussing things with someone that puts words in my mouth - life is too short.
Then tell us. Why are you afraid? Actually I don't care, I'm not constructing an ad hominem. It would be fun for you to actually address any of my multiple posts you've run from, nevermind your party affiliation.
Sure, I'll entertain it, shoot. See, this is where you show me what legislation they passed, voted against or failed to write played a part in the Great Republican Recession that was already in the works as I've noted by the multiple citations I've posted stating so. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lames-recession-democratic-congressional-tak/ This isn't just debunked, it's pants on fire debunked that FOX blamed the congressional Dems for the already-impending recession. We agree. The evidence shows that the economy did not "nose dive" for at least a year after the Democrats took control of Congress, and experts of various ideological backgrounds agree that long-term trends in the housing and energy markets played a bigger role in directly causing the recession. While what happens in Washington can certainly influence the economy, it is only one of many factors. We believe it is the height of partisan wishful thinking to imply that one party's accession to power in Congress is to blame for a major recession. Pants on Fire! Ok, time for a retarded one-liner, let's have it.
And it would be 'fun' if you would address one of mine. Where exactly did I type that I was a con, lib, '**********' or libertarian?
Oh Jebus, you're not that creative where you think you can distract the issue from all of the numerous points of mine you chickened out on to replace it with you party affiliation. I assume you're some kind conservative, don't care, love to see you quit chickening out, but what are ya gonna do, actually address points that will illustrate how F'd up your ideology is - whatever it is? Nah, just keep misdirecting. You're a legend in your own mind. Don't worry, people see it.
So...you can produce ZERO evidence that I ever called myself any of the above (you cannot because I NEVER have, btw). Yet you post over and over again that I am what you decide I am. This speaks volumes about you, I think. I.E. - you assume a TON. In both your discussions and your economic beliefs. Unfortunately, you appear far too arrogant to see this. Which also explains why you ignore facts that do not support your theories. Which I suppose is why your arguments often make such little sense and why your get so (seemingly) incredibly over-emotional about them. Have a nice day.
N utso, I don't care what party you belong to, I'm here to discuss the facts. Strat by dropping your misdirection attempt and show me how lovely the Nazi Party is here fro market gains over 110 year period, where when a Dem was president the market grew at a much higher rate: Kennedy/Johnson (Dem) administration (1961-1965) -- up 41.9% Johnson (Dem) administration (1965-1969) -- up 8.1% Nixon (Rep) administration (1969 to 1973) -- up 7.9% Nixon/Ford (Rep) administration (1973-1977) -- down 0.1% Carter (Dem) administration (1977-1981) -- down 4.1% Reagan (Rep) administration (1981-1985) -- up 25.6% Reagan (Rep) administration (1985-1989) -- up 79.0% Bush Sr. (Rep) administration (1989-1993 -- up 52.3% Clinton (Dem) administration (1993-1997) -- up 95.3% Clinton (Dem) administration (1997-2001) -- up 67.3% Bush Jr. (Rep) administration (2001-2005) -- unchanged Bush Jr. (Rep) administration (2005-2009) -- down 18.6% Obama (Dem) administration (2009 through Oct. 30, 2011) -- up 36.3% And after that, I have a whole slew of other posts you've run from. Don't care which party you belong to, claim to belong to, etc. No interest in you, just address the issues or have the sense to go away.
Then why do you keep claiming I am from a certain party if you do not care? And it's not like you have typed it but once. You have typed it over and over and over.... Who types things that frequently that they do not care about? One - I already addressed this 'list' of yours earlier. And the data I said you would not find, you still have not found. Which (so far) proves I was right. And two - what does this have to do with 'Pentagon Cuts to Strengthen America'? Can you not start another threat for your macro-economic obsessio...er...views?
Other than in conservative's tiny minds are things 100-0, so I do appportion some blame, what that % is I've never thought about it. But as it started unfolding, your chimp in chief just sat there and did nothing and they held the entire country, WH, Congress and SCOTUS. I think the Dems contribution was minimal and Politifactcheck agrees, as I posted the citation. Isn't it amazing that years preceeding the Great Republican Depression we had massive tax cuts and radical deregulation by the Republicans? Isn't it amazing that during the 80's slamming of teh debt that we had radical tax cuts under a Republican president? Isn't it amazing that preceeding this mess called the Great Republican Recession we had 6 years of straight Republican ownership of all 3 branches? And the recovery of all of these occurred under Democratic leadership. Deny, lie and be as ridiculous as you wish, but history doesn't lie. Now, is 100-0 Repugnican's fault? No, look at the House under Reagan, they wrote the tax cuts under his propostion instead of standing up to him, they coward and folded - gave him what he wanted. But primarliy these events occurred under Repugnican/conservative leadership and healed as the Dems took power back or rather the people gave it back to the Dems.
No, just ones based on proven empirical evidence. You haven't defended the claim very well. Overall, it grows the economy and stimulates job growth. Even if it does disincentivize some workers (no evidence for this) then it still has an overall positive effect.
This was your address of my data: Your techniques are this: 1) Whine about the thread being off topic, but then still address it. 2) Go on and on and on and on and on about how anyone here cares about your claimed party affiliation. Oh, BTW, no one cares. 3) If all those fail to derail / misdirect data against your position, then you must somewhat address it, so you demand some abstract comparison or irrelevant analysis of the data that's kicking your azz. My point was the market does better, much better under a Democratic president, the data is clear on that, not that anyone with any sense would need data to understand that. Then you enter demanding a same time comparison with Western Europe markets to see how their data compares. I never established or claimed our market against theirs, but if I did, then you would demand we compare against China, Japan and then African countries until you found something that might make your sorry little sociopathic party look successful. Aint gonna happen, Sally, that's not my point and that isn't relevant to my point. You want to make a point where you draw a comparison, be my guest, but you haven't even touched my data and how can you and still maintain your claim of conservative leadership being superior. This is what happens under D vs R presidents: - 32M to 50M job creation under Dem leadership, Dems with 50M over the last 50 or so years. - > 2 to1 market gains in the last 50 years under Dem presidents. - Far more debt creation under Republican presidents. - Great Recession and Great Depression under Republican presidents. On and on and on. I see why you get so defensive about this data, you've decided to submit to conservative logic and then decide why after the fact, versus look at all data and then decide which is better. I've voted for both major parties and a major independent as well as both parties in congress, so I'm not married to only 1 as it seems you are. But don't get caught up in that, address the issue of which party creates better market gains. Let's be real, you won't. Coward away.
Same with his brother, DUH60. They both run from data, get obscure, remote, misdrect. What can they do, I have yet to see any fiscal data compliment a conservative position.
Then why do you keep bringing it up? That's right...you didn't. So you have yet to prove my point is wrong. Have a nice day.
I don't have the burden to prove your point wrong, dain brammage. In fact, you never made a point, you tried to become obscure and demand I need to do some great research and compare our market to Europe's markets for some unknown reason. My point was simple, since Keneddy the US Stock market has > double the gains when a Dem is in office. I didn't make a claim as to how they did vs Europe, nor did you, so there was no point made, just a futile demand to attempt to relieve you of having your azz handed to you. It's silly to compare the US market to Europe's, but if you want to make a point and do teh researhc, I'llbe glad to read and repsond to it, something we all can see you do not do - you run. And to further show your dishonesty, this was my complete assertion on that over what fragment you quoted me as writing: I never established or claimed our market against theirs, but if I did, then you would demand we compare against China, Japan and then African countries until you found something that might make your sorry little sociopathic party look successful. Aint gonna happen, Sally, that's not my point and that isn't relevant to my point. You want to make a point where you draw a comparison, be my guest, but you haven't even touched my data and how can you and still maintain your claim of conservative leadership being superior. Now stop being a coward and respond: This is what happens under D vs R presidents: - 32M to 50M job creation under Dem leadership, Dems with 50M over the last 50 or so years. - > 2 to1 market gains in the last 50 years under Dem presidents. - Far more debt creation under Republican presidents. - Great Recession and Great Depression under Republican presidents.
Where exactly did I 'demand' you do anything? Okeee dokeee.... My response is.....here it comes..... 'Oh'. Have a great day.
Right, you lose....game-set-match: This is what happens under D vs R presidents: - 32M to 50M job creation under Dem leadership, Dems with 50M over the last 50 or so years. - > 2 to1 market gains in the last 50 years under Dem presidents. - Far more debt creation under Republican presidents. - Great Recession and Great Depression under Republican presidents.
Okaaaaay...whatever. Now where exactly did I 'demand' you do anything (like you claimed I did)? You claim I run away from questions...why not answer this one?
Post 140. These statistics are interesting. But they don't prove that the various administrations made a positive tangible difference to their economies unless you can prove that the administrations of other major western countries that had different economical philosophies then the corresponding American administration AND had radically different economic results during the respective time frames. And I bet you from (at least) Carter on that the economies of most major western economies performed roughly similarly to America's during the corresponding time frame. My point is that I think a POTUS's positive impact on an economy is usually INCREDIBLY over rated - be he Republican or Democrat. They can screw things up (as I believe Bush Jr. helped to do and Obama is helping to do)...but they usually cannot (imo) make things tangibly better for substantial periods. I believe it is best for POTUS's, when it comes to running the economy (outside of during a major declared war); to sit down, shut up and do nothing. So you demand that I do a massive case study and compare other western countries to the US or the data is insignificant. Did you forget or hoped I'd forget? Your lawyering sucks, your playing hide the sausage 10 ways from sunday and hoping I walked on it didn't work. I made a simple claim: THE MARKET HAS MADE < TWICE THE GAINS UNDER D PRESIDENTS VS R PRESIDENTS. So, realizing you're whipped, you can only get obscure and you do so by claiming a sort of bad timing, that it wasn't Repub policy, it was bad timing and that if the parties held the WH exactly opposite to when they did, yet applied their same policies while in power, the result would be 2:1 gain under R presidents. I believe that's where you're trying to go. Either way, it's your silly recipe, you prove it up; it's not my job or my burden. I made my point very well with objective data. And even if I did your research for you, you would then dice it up again and again to try to win or at least buy some time. I made a very general point, you run from it.
So typing 'But they don't prove that the various administrations made a positive tangible difference to their economies unless you can prove that' is a 'demand' in your opinion? de·mand (d-mnd) v. de·mand·ed, de·mand·ing, de·mands v.tr. 1. To ask for urgently or peremptorily: demand an investigation into the murder; demanding that he leave immediately; demanded to speak to the manager. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demand So where in that highlighted sentence of yours did I 'ask for urgently or peremptorily'? Or ask you to do ANYTHING for that matter. And...what exactly did you 'whip' me on again? You made a point that was not directed at me. And I typed a post in response to it. How is that 'running from it'? Have a nice day.
More semantics, more theatrics, more misdirection, ZERO ADDRESSING THE POINTS. See a trend? I whipped you on every issue we've discussed, as you've run away. Remember this one: 1919 - 73% 1920 - 73% 1921 - 73% 1922 - 58% 1923 - 58% 1924 - 46% 1925 - 25% Yea, the 1920-21 depression was over and recovered mostly under very high taxation, certainly not under low taxation. 3 years after very low taxation, 25%, then the wheels fell off. See, just another example of arguments you continue to run from. Your constant whining of breakling the rules, tangenting, worrying about who calls who a Republican are jujst repetitive examples of your protocol and we all see it. I keep trying to get these back on point and argue substance. Do you think people don't see this?
BTW, you said or inferred the data was not complete as it wasn't weighed against the othe rWestern countries, if that isn't a demand for further review I don't know what is. See, this is the stuff that makes readers realize you're just playing games, if you had data to share you would be all over it making your point, instead you defer to semantics, games, argumentative tactics, misdirection, etc.
Yes, remember that thread...and what exact point did you 'whip' me on? I see you have skipped a few of my questions. So, you call people 'cowards' if they do not answer your questions - no matter how ridiculous they think the questions are or whether they care much about the subject enough to answer your long questions in the first place? But what does that make you if you do not answer their questions? Are you going to avoid answering this one as well?
