"The NY23 is/was the interesting story of the off year election, that is if you disregard the 20 point swings in one year in the key states of Virginia and New Jersey! "
They weren't the same voters in VA and NJ. In 2008 they had over 20% turnout, this year it was less than 30% turnout. And the over 65 vote doubled this year.
It's hardly a sign of things to come. Especially when 60% of voters said that Obama played no role in their vote and only hall of the remaining 40% voted negatively regarding Obama
They were local elections based on local issues. It's silly to say there are deep national implications involved.
"So we heard it repeated a hundred or a thousand times that Dems have never held this seat since the civil war, then I heard a caller from the district on radio try to say that wasn't so but he was cut off on time,"
No dem has been elected to that seat since 1871. FACT!!!
It doesn't matter what someone in that district says, you can look up election records
No dem has won an election for that seat since 1871
"Unemployment was 4.6 when Dems took over Washington and 10.2% now"
Yet the seeds for the recession were in place long before they took office. The dems took leadership of the congress in Jan 2007. The recession began in Dec 2007.
The economy doesn't turn on a dime like that.
COme on, you THINK you're smart What precisely did the dems do in 11 months to cause this recession?
You're babbling incoherently!
Lets hear facts, not vague opinion
"The answer from the board is that it was higher under Reagan. I don't know how to answer children on the board who post an online stat not knowing that there might be people here who lived through that time and remember it well. "
Yes, my dear child. Look at the BLS, they will tell you that it was worse under Reagan and that it took 16 months to get positive job growth.
"You skipped the differences. When Reagan took office we had stagflation - look it up."
Yet you blame Carter for that. But for some reason it's silly to blame Bush? Grow a set of balls!
"When Jr. Senator Obama with with his cohorts Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Barney Frank won a majority in 2006 we had zero inflation 4.6% unemployment and a record 50 consecutive months of job growth."
Actually, that was the weakest period of post recession job growth in generations. Both Clinton and Reagan created exponentially more jobs that the 3 million BUsh Created.
Clinton created 23 million jobs. Bush created 3 million. Over 8 years!
WHo says so? the CONSERVATIVE Wall t Journal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
"When Reagan was elected in 1980, he announced a two-prong problem,..tight money coupled with pro-growth across the board tax rate cuts"
Yet you miss completely that Reagan tripled the national debt and spent us out of a recession.
"There was no delay with the tight money policies to choke out inflation because that cane from Paul Volcker at the Fed"
That same Paul Volker is one of Obama's top economic advisors and contributor to his economic policy. He has stated many times that he supports what Obama is doing. As it is "the right course of action"
Even Noble economists support his policies. Ooooh, but we should trust you instead! LMFAO!!!!!
"The Democratic congress passed the tax rate cuts but they were made smaller, broken into pieces and delayed."
Yet you also miss currently, the tax cuts that were a large part of the stimulus were larger than Reagan's 1st tax cut and Bush's 1st two.
But thats right moron! When there is a GOP president, when there is a bad economy, its always the dem congresses fault, and the previous administration's fault.
But when there is a bad economy under a dem, its "ridiculous" and irresponsible to blame anyone but the current president as republicans are always successful and NEVER responsible for anything unpleasant! LOL! GROW UP!
"What Dems don't get is that the full stimulative affect does not kick in until the final installment of the tax rate cuts and that job growth does not begin until investors are on board and in the game."
Actually, stimulus is supposed to have immediate results. Much like the recent stimulus. Bush and his disastrous conservative policies left us with a -6.4% GDP. Immediately after the stimulus passed, that quarter say -.07% growth and now we are in +3.5% growth. That's with less than 40% of the stimulus spent. By the time the entire package is spent next year we'll be booming. By mid-term elections. You cons are in DEEP shit!
"The full program eventually kicked in and revenues to the Treasury DOUBLED in the 1980s"
and debt tripled!
"You mention the end of the COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE HUMAN RECESSION of 1983, but the success of the economy was fully visible by 1984 when President Reagan WON 49 STATES!"
Yes, keep that in mind. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. Only a year before he had 39% approval. Things can rapidly change.
One other thing, don't assume that things that worked 25 years ago for a certain problem will work today for a problem that has a very different motivator and very different complexity.
"Deficits under Reagan were deficits under were spending deficits under Tip O'Neill - just in case you weren't born yet."
Just in case you never took a high school civics class (or even attended high school), presidents submit the budgets, congress passes them and the president signs them
Yet you think the president was a poor innocent victim of those mean old liberals and was powerless to do anything about it! LOL!
SO what is it con? Was Reagan a great president? Or was he a spineless and powerless weakling who couldn't stand up to congressional spending bullying? Your bullshit conflicts with itself!
"They weren't caused by tax rate cuts because tax rate cutsDOUBLED REVENUES to the Treasury."
Actually, tax cuts have a limited window of stimulating revenue. It's not a permanent increase in revenue. It declines after a short time. We saw that under Reagan and Bush. What you claim was tax cuts increasing revenue, has no historical proof, as both also dramatically increased spending
"This is a one-term Presidency and for those of you who only read DU, Kos and the Huff Post - you heard it here first"
What are you basing that on? The already increasing GDP? Obama's 54% approval?
Your demented fantasies?
- Location: America
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests