ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Feb 29, 2016 1:05pm
No freaking way. Here you go again saying something is the worst ever, when in reality, it is not.QuakerOats;1783822 wrote:We have just concluded the 8th straight year of sub-3% growth --- the worst stretch ever. You are absolutely correct that it is obama's policies that have crushed economic growth, investment and incentive. It started with obamaKare which has done nothing but pervert job creation along with wrecking insurance and starting to impact actual care. Then you look at his regulatory agencies and the job-destroying agenda that goes along with every executive fiat and appointment - from EPA to NLRB to OHSA to MSHA to banking and on down the line. It is practically a nightmare to be in manufacturing in this country anymore; it is no wonder that this once-formidable sector of our economy has largely moved offshore. His assault on capitalism and free enterprise will kill us if not reversed quickly.
Go back and look at the 1930s, and then the late 1800s.

like_that
Posts: 26,625
Feb 29, 2016 1:38pm
So then why did you say it when there is no proof either way?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783797 wrote:No, he asked for citation on something he knows would be impossible to cite. Which is why I asked him for citation proving otherwise, which would be impossible to cite.

ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Feb 29, 2016 1:46pm
like_that;1783855 wrote:So then why did you say it when there is no proof either way?
Why not? Have you ever said anything you witnessed and/or believed that you didn't have unequivocal proof either way? Or perhaps probably normal people didn't ask you to cite it?

like_that
Posts: 26,625
Feb 29, 2016 1:54pm
There is a difference between that and speaking with certainty/absolute statements when you're actually speaking out of your ass.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783858 wrote:Why not? Have you ever said anything you witnessed and/or believed that you didn't have unequivocal proof either way? Or perhaps probably normal people didn't ask you to cite it?

ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Feb 29, 2016 1:57pm
like_that;1783860 wrote:There is a difference between that and speaking with certainty/absolute statements when you're actually speaking out of your ass.
dude.. lol whatever you say.
A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
Feb 29, 2016 2:04pm
The stretch in the 1930s wasn't as long as the current stretch below 3% growth. http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Year/a/US-GDP-History.htmptown_trojans_1;1783835 wrote:No freaking way. Here you go again saying something is the worst ever, when in reality, it is not.
Go back and look at the 1930s, and then the late 1800s.

like_that
Posts: 26,625
Feb 29, 2016 2:05pm
Typical zwick, never can man up.
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Feb 29, 2016 2:15pm
Fixedlike_that;1783870 wrote:Typical LIBERAL, never can man up.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Feb 29, 2016 2:18pm
Hopefully, Barack Obama hasn’t “fundamentally transformed” the American economy. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported that the United States has experienced 10 straight years of GDP growth below 3% — a first since the agency started to track the data in 1929. Furthermore, a report that Obama’s economic advisers sent to Congress predicted much of the same economic activity for the next few years. It predicted the once great American economy would only increase the GDP by 2.7% for 2016, and decline after that. This isn’t normal, as every American recovery since the 1960s experienced an average GDP growth of 3.9%. Sen. Dan Coats, who chairs Congress' Joint Economic Committee, said he will investigate the causes of the crippled economy at an upcoming hearing. “In order to boost GDP,” Coats said, “we need to overhaul our tax code and strip away unnecessary government regulations to give employers the confidence they need grow their businesses and create new jobs. Congress can take action to help grow our economy, but we need a willing partner in the White House.” Indeed, Americans need to see past Obama’s economic fantasies and elect someone who understands that the American economy needs Liberty to thrive.ptown_trojans_1;1783835 wrote:No freaking way. Here you go again saying something is the worst ever, when in reality, it is not.
Go back and look at the 1930s, and then the late 1800s.
I deal in facts and reality, unlike liberals.

ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Feb 29, 2016 2:21pm
Hates liberals.BR1986FB;1783873 wrote:Fixed
On a thread about a Liberal.

HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Feb 29, 2016 2:26pm
It has nothing to do with Obamacare or taxes.
You don't own a small business, do you? I will tell you definitively that it does....as well as over regulation.
Our hiring practices have been "transformed".
B
BR1986FB
Posts: 24,104
Feb 29, 2016 2:28pm
No, just extreme liberals.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1783878 wrote:Hates liberals.
On a thread about a Liberal.

ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Feb 29, 2016 2:29pm
HitsRus;1783880 wrote:You don't own a small business, do you? I will tell you definitively that it does....as well as over regulation.
I completely agree small businesses need tax reform and exemptions. You won't hear disagreements from me. Big businesses need tax reforms also, just the other way.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Feb 29, 2016 2:29pm
Compare and contrast to:
The longest consecutive stretch of years in which the United State saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the seven year period from 1983-1989, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
a time when virtually everyone did well.
The difference between Reagan and obama is simply immeasurable.
The longest consecutive stretch of years in which the United State saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the seven year period from 1983-1989, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
a time when virtually everyone did well.
The difference between Reagan and obama is simply immeasurable.

ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Feb 29, 2016 2:30pm
that's not what you said 1 post prior.BR1986FB;1783881 wrote:No, just extreme liberals.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Feb 29, 2016 2:35pm
The facts since 1929, correct.QuakerOats;1783876 wrote:Hopefully, Barack Obama hasn’t “fundamentally transformed” the American economy. The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported that the United States has experienced 10 straight years of GDP growth below 3% — a first since the agency started to track the data in 1929. Furthermore, a report that Obama’s economic advisers sent to Congress predicted much of the same economic activity for the next few years. It predicted the once great American economy would only increase the GDP by 2.7% for 2016, and decline after that. This isn’t normal, as every American recovery since the 1960s experienced an average GDP growth of 3.9%. Sen. Dan Coats, who chairs Congress' Joint Economic Committee, said he will investigate the causes of the crippled economy at an upcoming hearing. “In order to boost GDP,” Coats said, “we need to overhaul our tax code and strip away unnecessary government regulations to give employers the confidence they need grow their businesses and create new jobs. Congress can take action to help grow our economy, but we need a willing partner in the White House.” Indeed, Americans need to see past Obama’s economic fantasies and elect someone who understands that the American economy needs Liberty to thrive.
I deal in facts and reality, unlike liberals.
However, to it is the worst growth ever, is simply not true.
If you collectively take the growth from 1929 to 1941, that is worse than now, even with the spike in the early 1930s. The same data shows that.
I would also say the peaks and valleys from late the 1880s, with the various booms and busts, were much worse than today.
My whole point is you are suggesting this is the worst growth in US history, I am saying, only if you look at it from a recently standpoint, is that the case.
Nice shot at the end chief.

like_that
Posts: 26,625
Feb 29, 2016 2:39pm
Don't let the main point get in your way, it's still very shitty growth.ptown_trojans_1;1783889 wrote:The facts since 1929, correct.
However, to it is the worst growth ever, is simply not true.
If you collectively take the growth from 1929 to 1941, that is worse than now, even with the spike in the early 1930s. The same data shows that.
I would also say the peaks and valleys from late the 1880s, with the various booms and busts, were much worse than today.
My whole point is you are suggesting this is the worst growth in US history, I am saying, only if you look at it from a recently standpoint, is that the case.
Nice shot at the end chief.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Feb 29, 2016 2:40pm
Very true.like_that;1783890 wrote:Don't let the main point get in your way, it's still very shitty growth.
Still, growth. But, as you said, shitty growth.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Feb 29, 2016 2:44pm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/29/senior-clinton-aide-maintained-top-secret-clearance-amid-email-probe-letters-show.html?intcmp=hpbt3
the double standard rolls on .........
the double standard rolls on .........

Dr Winston O'Boogie
Posts: 1,799
Feb 29, 2016 5:47pm
Unfortunately, I believe the coronation will proceed. I really do hope that if Trump were elected, he'd push for charges brought. Not to the detriment of the country, of course. But if it would perhaps end the Clinton era in Washington, that'd be wonderful.

Apple
Posts: 2,620
Mar 1, 2016 9:18am
It would be quite the accomplishment for ANYONE to first knock out the Bushs and then the Clintons. Even if it means we end up with Trump, on the whole, America would be in a better place.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1783935 wrote:Unfortunately, I believe the coronation will proceed. I really do hope that if Trump were elected, he'd push for charges brought. Not to the detriment of the country, of course. But if it would perhaps end the Clinton era in Washington, that'd be wonderful.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Mar 1, 2016 9:32am
gosh a ruddies Apple in Germany in November, 1932 election "it would be quite and accomplishment for Anyone to knock out Wels and those damn liberal socials SPDers. Even if we end up with Hilter, on the whole, Germany would be a better place."Apple;1783999 wrote:It would be quite the accomplishment for ANYONE to first knock out the Bushs and then the Clintons. Even if it means we end up with Trump, on the whole, America would be in a better place.

MontyBrunswick
Posts: 846
Mar 1, 2016 9:33am
Hillary is going to lock up the nomination today and be on her way to presidency!!!!!!
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Mar 1, 2016 9:38am
Sadly, in reality, it's not that simple and you're probably wrong - but hence the appeal of Trump.Apple;1783999 wrote:It would be quite the accomplishment for ANYONE to first knock out the Bushs and then the Clintons. Even if it means we end up with Trump, on the whole, America would be in a better place.

HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Mar 1, 2016 9:48am
Wow...I agree with boatshoes....imagine that! I don't think Trump would be a very good president....his 'appeal' is just not a very good reason to elect him to such an important office.