Are conservatives backing the wrong party?

[captaingeech]

Obama is trying to follow the Jimmy Carter model.

Good luck with that

Please see OP request #3

Do you think Carter was a success? Where did I go wrong in mocking Jimmy Carter and Obama?

Be specific and explain exactly what you are referring to. Use evidence to support your opinion. The OP shows that job growth under Carter was higher than under Reagan.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Please see OP request #3

Do you think Carter was a success? Where did I go wrong in mocking Jimmy Carter and Obama?

Be specific and explain exactly what you are referring to. Use evidence to support your opinion. The OP shows that job growth under Carter was higher than under Reagan.

Right! So right! And Dems want to go back to the worst days of Jimmy Carter and I wish you all the best. God speed!

Carter cut capital gains, deregulated (there's that scary word) trucking and airlines, and increased defense spending. I don't see Obama doing any of that! I don't any Democrat wanting to take the correct steps Carter took.

 

[captaingeech]

Do you think Carter was a success? Where did I go wrong in mocking Jimmy Carter and Obama?

Be specific and explain exactly what you are referring to. Use evidence to support your opinion. The OP shows that job growth under Carter was higher than under Reagan.

Right! So right! And Dems want to go back to the worst days of Jimmy Carter and I wish you all the best. God speed!

Carter cut capital gains, deregulated (there's that scary word) trucking and airlines, and increased defense spending. I don't see Obama doing any of that! I don't any Democrat wanting to take the correct steps Carter took.

Please see OP request #1,2, and 3. Also, it wasn't really clear what point you were trying to make.

 

[Jeremy]

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

Welcome to USMB!!!

1) threads rarely stay on subject beyond the first dozen posts.
2)
3) Again welcome to USMB and best o' luck on that request.

 

[DiamondDave]

Maddow and other winger material... epic fail

Please see OP request #3

The evidence is that Maddow is a winger zealot and is not a legit 'source' for any factual information.. she is a hyper partisan hack.. no different than when left wingers such as yourself complain about right wingers who cite Rush or some other entertainment blowhard

Now... come with something logical or factual, or stay home

 

[Christopher]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

Tax cuts do stimulate growth, to a varying degree depending on how high the tax rates were to start with and which tax rates are being cut, and to what degree they were cut. There are so many other variables to this equation that Maddow does not consider. The problem was that Reagan and Congress increased spending, rather than decreased it. There is plenty of blame to go around between Reagan and the Democratically-controlled Congress for the deficit. From your own link:

-- The president actually deserves less credit for the good times -- and less blame for the bad times. It's a truism of politics that when things go well, the president generally gets too much credit, and when things don't go well, the president usually gets too much blame. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth? Shouldn't the Democratic House that served under Reagan? Most experts would say yes and yes.

Are you trying to convince people that Democrats are better at being fiscally responsible? Good luck with that. Wait until we see Obama’s budget charts over the next few years.

By the way, welcome to the board and just a word of advice: I would not make it a habit of using Maddow’s show as the basis for your political insight.

 

[hortysir]

Congressional actions had zero effect

Please see OP request #3

Please see my ass.
I'm not a member of the sophomore class debate club, and I have a severe disability in the "following directions" gene.

Your left-leaning partisan hero-bitch is contorting facts to shed her party in a positive light.
She sings songs of praise for her Democratic presidents, but omits which party had control of the legislative branch during these terms.

So don't come to me with 1/2 truths and partisan talking points and try to dictate posting rules.

 

[captaingeech]

Maddow and other winger material... epic fail

Please see OP request #3

The evidence is that Maddow is a winger zealot and is not a legit 'source' for any factual information.. she is a hyper partisan hack.. no different than when left wingers such as yourself complain about right wingers who cite Rush or some other entertainment blowhard

Now... come with something logical or factual, or stay home

First of all, you didn't back up your opinion with any facts just now. Secondly, Maddow reported on a chart created by presidentialdebt.org. If you want to challenge the data, you should be targeting this website, not Maddow. It would be even better if you looked up the facts for yourself, and used hard evidence on which to base your argument.

But since you did not, it creates the impression that you are unable to do so.

 

[captaingeech]

Congressional actions had zero effect

Please see OP request #3

Please see my ass.
I'm not a member of the sophomore class debate club, and I have a severe disability in the "following directions" gene.

Your left-leaning partisan hero-bitch is contorting facts to shed her party in a positive light.
She sings songs of praise for her Democratic presidents, but omits which party had control of the legislative branch during these terms.

So don't come to me with 1/2 truths and partisan talking points and try to dictate posting rules.

You began to touch upon the subject of the legislature during the corresponding presidential administrations, which is an interesting point. Can you develop it further? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

 

[captaingeech]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

Tax cuts do stimulate growth, to a varying degree depending on how high the tax rates were to start with and which tax rates are being cut, and to what degree they were cut. There are so many other variables to this equation that Maddow does not consider. The problem was that Reagan and Congress increased spending, rather than decreased it. There is plenty of blame to go around between Reagan and the Democratically-controlled Congress for the deficit. From your own link:

-- The president actually deserves less credit for the good times -- and less blame for the bad times. It's a truism of politics that when things go well, the president generally gets too much credit, and when things don't go well, the president usually gets too much blame. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth? Shouldn't the Democratic House that served under Reagan? Most experts would say yes and yes.

Are you trying to convince people that Democrats are better at being fiscally responsible? Good luck with that. Wait until we see Obama’s budget charts over the next few years.

By the way, welcome to the board and just a word of advice: I would not make it a habit of using Maddow’s show as the basis for your political insight.

You're right, good show! Here's the bit from the same source you quoted that makes me reluctant to give up on the whole argument:

"Obviously, luck matters a lot, but when there is a consistent pattern over more than 60 years, it starts to look like more than just luck."

If the pattern held just for a few administrations, I would agree with you. The consistency of the pattern over such a long time makes me suspicious.

I am reluctant to include Obama yet, since his first term isn't even up yet, which makes it difficult to stand back and see a pattern. However, once Obama took office, the trend in job losses almost immediately reversed itself, and if things keep going as they are, we are at a pace to add 1.5 million jobs by the end of this year:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#36155542

As for Maddow, I have always found her factual reporting accurate. Even if you don't agree with her commentary, you must agree that she gets her facts straight.

 

[DiamondDave]

Please see OP request #3

The evidence is that Maddow is a winger zealot and is not a legit 'source' for any factual information.. she is a hyper partisan hack.. no different than when left wingers such as yourself complain about right wingers who cite Rush or some other entertainment blowhard

Now... come with something logical or factual, or stay home

First of all, you didn't back up your opinion with any facts just now. Secondly, Maddow reported on a chart created by presidentialdebt.org. If you want to challenge the data, you should be targeting this website, not Maddow. It would be even better if you looked up the facts for yourself, and used hard evidence on which to base your argument.

But since you did not, it creates the impression that you are unable to do so.

Opinion...?? And let me guess, any links stating that Maddow is indeed a winger, you would dismiss... It is about as well known that she is an ideological extremist entertainer, just like Michael Savage is on the other side.

The fact is, I do not cite any winger links from either side, choosing to stay with sources which are generally considered to be mainstream and factual. You do not see me citing Fox opinion pieces, nor citing MSNBC opinion pieces. You do not see me citing blogs as fact.

And the fact that Maddow herself uses winger sources should tell you something. I suggest using the actual non-polished data from the governmental sources themselves if you want to produce jobs or economic data.

Until you use any credible information, source, or data, you will not be taken seriously at all. What next? reaganbushdebt.org like one of our other resident lying wingers tries to use?

 

[captaingeech]

The evidence is that Maddow is a winger zealot and is not a legit 'source' for any factual information.. she is a hyper partisan hack.. no different than when left wingers such as yourself complain about right wingers who cite Rush or some other entertainment blowhard

Now... come with something logical or factual, or stay home

First of all, you didn't back up your opinion with any facts just now. Secondly, Maddow reported on a chart created by presidentialdebt.org. If you want to challenge the data, you should be targeting this website, not Maddow. It would be even better if you looked up the facts for yourself, and used hard evidence on which to base your argument.

But since you did not, it creates the impression that you are unable to do so.

Opinion...?? And let me guess, any links stating that Maddow is indeed a winger, you would dismiss... It is about as well known that she is an ideological extremist entertainer, just like Michael Savage is on the other side.

The fact is, I do not cite any winger links from either side, choosing to stay with sources which are generally considered to be mainstream and factual. You do not see me citing Fox opinion pieces, nor citing MSNBC opinion pieces. You do not see me citing blogs as fact.

And the fact that Maddow herself uses winger sources should tell you something. I suggest using the actual non-polished data from the governmental sources themselves if you want to produce jobs or economic data.

Until you use any credible information, source, or data, you will not be taken seriously at all. What next? reaganbushdebt.org like one of our other resident lying wingers tries to use?

I'm not seeing you cite any sources whatsoever. This makes it seem like you have no facts to back up your claims. Prove me wrong.

I'll give you a leg up:
Rachel Maddow created a chart using information from www.presidentialdebt.org
In turn, www.presidentialdebt.org cites the following as its sources
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=Y#S2
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/index.html
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/national.html http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

 

[Gunny]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

Argument goes both ways. Why are Democrats more conservative than those they accuse of being conservatives? Every bit as inflexible and willfully blind as anyone they point a finger at.

 

[Flopper]

History has taught us a great deal about recessions. Governments have a number of tools it can use to fight a recession. It can use fiscal policy (tax cuts and increased government spending), monetary policy (lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply), or do nothing. Regardless of what is done or not done, the economy will eventually come out the recession. You can find statistics that show that various tools worked in the past for all the above, but there is no proof that any of them always work.

Anyone who has had a first course in economics knows that job growth is the last thing to occur as you move out of a recession. Of the tools mentioned above, the only tool the government can use is at this time is government spending which doesn't do a very good job of creating long term job growth. Taxes can't be cut because of the deficit. Monetary policy can't be used due to the low interest rates. So we are in for slow job growth which is bad for the country but good for the Republicans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How can Conservatives possibly be at home with Democrats when Dems vote with Socialist Bernie Sanders 95+% of the time?

What planet are you from?

 

[oreo]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

First of all your chart is BOGUS. There is absolutely no way that Jimmy Carter had a 2.43% increase in employment during his 4 years.

I know I "survived" the Carter years. Unemployment was at 10%--mortgage interest rates were at 20%. Inflation was over 10%. THOSE ARE THE FACTS of the Carter administration. In fact during Carter they actually invented what was called the "misery" index--.

Barack Obama is well on track to beat the "worst" economic record of Jimmy Carter--with his spending.

No one can borrow and spend their way to prosperity. It doesn't work. It didn't during FDR either. It was WW2 that brought us out of the great depression and nothing else.

 

[captaingeech]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

First of all your chart is BOGUS. There is absolutely no way that Jimmy Carter had a 2.43% increase in employment during his 4 years.

I know I "survived" the Carter years. Unemployment was at 10%--mortgage interest rates were at 20%. Inflation was over 10%. THOSE ARE THE FACTS of the Carter administration. In fact during Carter they actually invented what was called the "misery" index--.

Barack Obama is well on track to beat the "worst" economic record of Jimmy Carter--with his spending.

No one can borrow and spend their way to prosperity. It doesn't work. It didn't during FDR either. It was WW2 that brought us out of the great depression and nothing else.

Support your claim. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

 

[Oddball]

So, let's see if I get this right....

The OP makes a claim, supported by nothing more than a piece form a biased far left wing apparatchik from CCCPNBC, yet the rest of us, per item #3 in the silly OP, are supposed to refute the obvious propaganda with verifiable facts?

Mmmmmmmmmmkaaay.

 

[Charles_Main]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

Um LOL that Congress woman is a fucking IDIOT. So congress has nothing to do with JOB creation? Oh and how is Obama doing at creating Private sector Jobs? How many compared to Government jobs has he created? Liberals are clearly DELUSIONAL.

 

[captaingeech]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

Um LOL that Congress woman is a fucking IDIOT. So congress has nothing to do with JOB creation? Oh and how is Obama doing at creating Private sector Jobs? How many compared to Government jobs has he created? Liberals are clearly DELUSIONAL.

The private sector has shown six straight months of job growth.
PolitiFact | Geithner claims U.S. had six months of positive job growth in the private sector