Democrats vs Republicans
 

Help me prove this is incorrect.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...42925400_n.jpg

Pretty clear who does a better job to me, though I think both are bad options.

But.. Obama... failed... must.. win.. take back country.. huh?

So, the point you're trying to make here is that bananas taste great when dipped in chocolate? Am I close?

Spot On!

http://www.superhealthykids.com/imag...a-smoothie.jpg

STOCK MARKET
When Obama took office, the Dow Jones was hovering around 7800. Today it is around 13000. When Bush2 took office, the Dow Jones was hovering around 10800. When he left, it was around 7800.
Who’s to blame for the massive collapse during Bush2? Partially 9/11 but mostly an unmonitored, money-hungry banking system that got too greedy and who almost destroyed our country (and the world) as we know it. As can be seen in the chart, when Obama took office, the Dow Jones was on a rapid decline as a result of our banking system. But it quickly turned around over past two years or so. I would have to say the Dow Jones is way better off.

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
The day Obama took office, unemployment was 7.7% . The rate was about 2/3 the way up from where it started to where it peaked about 9 months later at just over 10%. Again, thank you banking system! Today unemployment is at 8.3%. Obama couldn’t do much about the rapidly increasing unemployment rate when he took office, but it has been decreasing from this peak since then.
By way of comparison, it took about 14 years for the unemployment rate to get back its pre-depression level as the result of the Great Depression. ( http://contraryinvesting.com/wp-cont...Depression.gif ). Are we better off in terms of unemployment? Depends if you “blame” Obama for the time when he first took office, when unemployment was rapidly increasing to 10% or if you look at what has happened since the peak.

GAS PRICES
When gas prices are high, all you hear about how much gas went up under Obama. When Bush2 took office, gas was $1.46. During his term gas went as high as $4.12 or a 182% increase. When Obama took office, gas was $1.79. During his term gas went as high as $3.95 or 121% increase. Not saying it is Bush2 fault, just tired of hearing how Obama has driven the gas prices up while implying that it was always low prior to 2009.
In reality, there isn’t much a president can do about the price of gas (even Fox News was saying this during Bush2 https://youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o). In the chart, notice how the national average of gas almost mirrors the Down Jones. Seems logical being as it (crude oil) is a publically traded commodity and the output of crude is regulated by OPEC. What about increasing oil production domestically? Assuming oil production could be increased domestically tomorrow, I think it is safe to say OPEC would just limit their production to keep the price high. Not to mention the real driving force in the price of gas is our national refining capacity, which has been steadily declining over the past 30 years.

NATIONAL DEBT
Since 1977, the amount of debt added by Republican presidents: $8.294T and Democratic Presidents: $6.934T (take Obama out and that number shrinks to just over a $1T for the Dems). I guess you could make a joke saying “Obama is spending like a Republican” based on these numbers. You can’t really blame Obamacare for this, being as it doesn’t kick in until 2014. In reality, with unemployment high, tax revenues are down. Add to that a congress that is so extremely partisan, a budget hasn’t been passed in over 3 years, let alone an attempt at a balanced budget. Add the two together and you get skyrocketing debts.

I am not sure how tax cuts for the rich is going to lower our debt when it seems very likely congress will remain deadlocked on a budget of any kind to pay for them. And what about cutting taxes on business? In the long run, unemployment will go down but our debt will continue to grow and grow.
Think of it like this. I own a business and government has decided to cut my taxes by $100,000. Out of the kindles of my heart, I decide to hire one person and pay them this $100,000 (or two people at $50,000 but let’s keep it simple). That person will end up paying $10,000 (after all deductions and credits) in federal taxes. Let’s massively assume that person spends the other $90,000 of their salary in a way that directly results in someone being hired who makes $90,000. This second person will pay $9,000 in federal taxes. Keep going down the line with the same logic, one $80,000 job = $8,000 in taxes, $70,000 = $7,000 and so one.
Taxes collected on the initial $100,000 tax break = $55,000 or $45,000 added to our debt. Put as many zeros behind these numbers as you want, but they never add up to the original tax cut. And keep in mind, this is all based on a totally unrealistic assumption that $100,000 tax break will result in 10 new jobs. More than likely, the Initial $100,000 tax break will result in less than $20,000 being added back in taxes. You think the other $75,000 federal debt is going to be made up by the business tax revenues bases on the added productivity of those 10 jobs created?

Tax breaks of any kind, without reducing the budget is deficit spending at its best.

Well according to most Democrats everything that has happened in the past four years was Bushes fault.
So if that's true you can thank Republicans for giving Democrats such good standings and vice versa..


There Problem solved. :thumbsup

That's easy. It conveniently goes back 50 years. So you start it out with Kennedy inheriting a good economy from Eisenhower (whose main goal was eliminating the national debt)
Then Johnson came in for four years and escalated the Vietnam war and the economy did real well (as it always seems to in war).

As Nixon ended the Vietnam war..the "bubble" of the 1960's crashed and we ended up in a recession in 1970. These days, using the Obama methodology, it would have all been blamed on Johnson's policies. lol

Then Ford came in and the economy was in pretty bad shape. Mostly because of the "oil crisis" brought on by OPEC.
That escalated during the Carter years and the economy was just horrible. Ending up with an inflation rate of 12%, and an unemployment rate of over 7%

Reagan took office with the economy in shambles. By 1982 he was looking at a 9.6% unemployment rate. Even higher than Obama had to deal with. But by 1984 he had it down to 7,5% and by the end of his term it was all the way down to 5.5%

Then the Clinton years came and the internet tech bubble happened. The 90's were fucking awesome! By the time Clinton left office in 2000 the unemployment rate was down to 4.4%! That kicked ASS! And that is where the big Democrats numbers come from. All from Clinton.

Bush took office and the economy stayed strong with super low unemployment until the crash of the housing market caused by stupid ass Congress with Fannie May And Freddie Mac home loans.
Bush had a great run though. In 2007 unemployment was at 4.6%! In 2008 in his final year it was only 5.8% and would have been lower except the housing market crashed in Sept. of 2008 and took down the economy.

All 4 years of Obama have had high unemployment. :( 9.3% in 2009, 9.6% in 2010, and 9.1% in 2011 The numbers for 2012 aren't complete yet. But it's over 8%. He's pretty much failed with the economy.

The Clinton years were the best in this century (hell, maybe in the countries entire history) And the Bush years weren't far behind. If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq....Bush would have probably ended up with a tremendous presidency. But those wars put us so far in debt that he can't be counted that way in my opinion.