Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

funny. I thought we were supposed to be praising Obama because he fixed our economy. Now the wages are too low.

you need to work on making your talking points consistent

You're a dumbass if you think I ever said Obama fixed the economy. He greatly improved it sure, but much work still needs to be done.

obama 'greatly improved the economy'?

Specifically... in what way?

His stimulus alone created 3 million jobs.

ROFLMNAO! Nonsense.

What you're wanting to do, is to claim that jobs which came DESPITE the Left's policies, were the result OF the Left's policies.

You've been asked to cite ANY LEFTIST POLICY WHICH YOU CAN SHOW TO BE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH AS A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE JOBS and you've failed to do so.

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE SIMPLY COME OF WORKING AGE SINCE JANUARY 2009? How many people illegally crossed into the US LOOKING FOR JOBS, since 2009?

Now correlate those people into the jobs THEY GOT and DID NOT GET... . THEN... take the US Citizens who lost their jobs and add THEM into the mix and see what THEY DID Job wise.

3 million jobs ain't SHIT!

 

[Billy000]

The problem are wages that are too low.

funny. I thought we were supposed to be praising Obama because he fixed our economy. Now the wages are too low.

you need to work on making your talking points consistent

You're a dumbass if you think I ever said Obama fixed the economy. He greatly improved it sure, but much work still needs to be done.

obama 'greatly improved the economy'?

Specifically... in what way?

His stimulus alone created 3 million jobs.

ROFLMNAO! Nonsense.

What you're wanting to do, is to claim that jobs which came DESPITE the Left's policies, were the result OF the Left's policies.

You've been asked to cite ANY LEFTIST POLICY WHICH YOU CAN SHOW TO BE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH AS A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE JOBS and you've failed to do so.

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE SIMPLY COME OF WORKING AGE SINCE JANUARY 2009? How many people illegally crossed into the US LOOKING FOR JOBS, since 2009?

Now correlate those people into the jobs THEY GOT and DID NOT GET... . THEN... take the US Citizens who lost their jobs and add THEM into the mix and see what THEY DID Job wise.

3 million jobs ain't SHIT!

CBO Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

Google will do you wonders. Try it some time. Had the stimulus been bigger like it was meant to be, it would have created more than 3 million.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

 

[Wyatt earp]

Are those jobs still there? All I seen was trees planted, new signs and street lamps, the Obama care worry slowed down the economy for years , due to companies not knowing the out come from the SCOTUS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Someone upthread said that the real estate market collapse was global. It wasn't. It was strictly "Made in America".

The worldwide banking system was brought down by the collapse of the US real estate market.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

It should also be pointed out that Carter was the guy who passed the Community Re-investment Act, which functioned without any crisis in foreclosures, or even major losses by the lenders, until it was used by greed Wall Street bankers to excuse poor lending practices in the sub-prime market.

Conservatives has been using the CRA as an excuse for the excesses of greed and poor lending brought about by Bush's low lending rates and a Republican Congress and Senate de-regulating Wall Street.

I have noted that conservatives busily re-write history to suit their politics and to find a way to blame Democrats when anything goes wrong, but the bald fact is that Republicans are fiscal idiots, who haven't the vaguest notion of how to manage the US budget.

Democrats are demonized as the "tax and spend" party, but those taxes are to pay for their spending, and they have the good sense to fund their programs. Notice how "tax" comes before spend.

Republicans cut taxes and think that increased revenues will cover the cuts. It didn't work under Reagan, and it sure as hell didn't work under Bush II. To add insult to injury, Bush II added Medicaid Part D without any corresponding tax to fund it. Lunacy!

Bush was so economically challenged, he crashed the US economy and nearly took the rest of the world down with it. That is some spectacular stupidity, and yet the current bunch are Republicans are talking about doing the same dumb things that Bush did.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

That's awesome! What are reserve requirements in the Great White North, eh?

Canadian Banks are not subject to US law... which required banks to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, and substitute such with a perverted notion of fairness... Also... Canadian banks were not guaranteed against losses by the US Federal Government, when sub-standard mortgagees failed to service their debt.

So.. as is nearly always the case... Canada is irrelevant.

Also... Canadian banks were not guaranteed against losses by the US Federal Government

American banks weren't guaranteed against losses either.
They lost hundreds of billions.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Plus most of the stimulus money was never spent and obamas own words was he was wrong about "shovel ready jobs"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Someone upthread said that the real estate market collapse was global. It wasn't. It was strictly "Made in America".

The worldwide banking system was brought down by the collapse of the US real estate market.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

It should also be pointed out that Carter was the guy who passed the Community Re-investment Act, which functioned without any crisis in foreclosures, or even major losses by the lenders, until it was used by greed Wall Street bankers to excuse poor lending practices in the sub-prime market.

Conservatives has been using the CRA as an excuse for the excesses of greed and poor lending brought about by Bush's low lending rates and a Republican Congress and Senate de-regulating Wall Street.

I have noted that conservatives busily re-write history to suit their politics and to find a way to blame Democrats when anything goes wrong, but the bald fact is that Republicans are fiscal idiots, who haven't the vaguest notion of how to manage the US budget.

Democrats are demonized as the "tax and spend" party, but those taxes are to pay for their spending, and they have the good sense to fund their programs. Notice how "tax" comes before spend.

Republicans cut taxes and think that increased revenues will cover the cuts. It didn't work under Reagan, and it sure as hell didn't work under Bush II. To add insult to injury, Bush II added Medicaid Part D without any corresponding tax to fund it. Lunacy!

Bush was so economically challenged, he crashed the US economy and nearly took the rest of the world down with it. That is some spectacular stupidity, and yet the current bunch are Republicans are talking about doing the same dumb things that Bush did.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

That's awesome! What are reserve requirements in the Great White North, eh?

Canadian Banks are not subject to US law... which required banks to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, and substitute such with a perverted notion of fairness... Also... Canadian banks were not guaranteed against losses by the US Federal Government, when sub-standard mortgagees failed to service their debt.

So.. as is nearly always the case... Canada is irrelevant.

Also... Canadian banks were not guaranteed against losses by the US Federal Government

American banks weren't guaranteed against losses either.
They lost hundreds of billions.

Well, they literally were guaranteed against losses, it's just the guarantees were issued by unprincipled sub-humans, OKA: Leftists. Therefore, they were not worth the paper they were written upon.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

funny. I thought we were supposed to be praising Obama because he fixed our economy. Now the wages are too low.

you need to work on making your talking points consistent

You're a dumbass if you think I ever said Obama fixed the economy. He greatly improved it sure, but much work still needs to be done.

obama 'greatly improved the economy'?

Specifically... in what way?

His stimulus alone created 3 million jobs.

ROFLMNAO! Nonsense.

What you're wanting to do, is to claim that jobs which came DESPITE the Left's policies, were the result OF the Left's policies.

You've been asked to cite ANY LEFTIST POLICY WHICH YOU CAN SHOW TO BE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH AS A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE JOBS and you've failed to do so.

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE SIMPLY COME OF WORKING AGE SINCE JANUARY 2009? How many people illegally crossed into the US LOOKING FOR JOBS, since 2009?

Now correlate those people into the jobs THEY GOT and DID NOT GET... . THEN... take the US Citizens who lost their jobs and add THEM into the mix and see what THEY DID Job wise.

3 million jobs ain't SHIT!

CBO Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

Google will do you wonders. Try it some time. Had the stimulus been bigger like it was meant to be, it would have created more than 3 million.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

Your concession is, again... Duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, the CBO said almost 1/3rd of deficits 2001-2010 can be traced to Dubya's tax cuts. Of course those 'jobs' Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies were supposed to create, never came. He lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years as he doubled the debt

If only that were true,the nation saw the 2nd longest economic expansion during the Bush years,cherry picking doesn't tell the whole story,but hacks love to do that.

REALLY? 2ND LONGEST? lol


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

...Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

Yes,really!

"An economy usually grows rapidly in the years immediately following a recession. As Peter Ferrera points out in Forbes, the U.S. economy has not even reached its long run average rate of growth of 3.3 percent; the highest annual growth rate since Obama took office was 2.8 percent. Total growth in real GDP over the 19 quarters of economic recovery since the second quarter of 2009 has been 10.2 percent. Growth over the same length of time during previous post-World War II recoveries has ranged from 15.1 percent during George W. Bush’s presidency to 30 percent during the recovery that began when John F. Kennedy was elected.

Over the first five years of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. economy grew more slowly than during any five-year period since just after the end of World War II, averaging less than 1.3 percent per year. If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932. No other president since the Great Depression has presided over such a steadily poor rate of economic growth during his first five years in office."

The Obama Economic Record The Worst Five Years Since World War II The Daily Caller

Weird, you mean it DOESN'T matter the size of the hole Dubya/GOP/Banksters created? Just that Obama/Dems didn't fix it fast enough? Or strong enough? BET OBAMA WILL HAVE A HIGHER GROWTH GDP OVER 8 YEARS THAN DUBYA'S? HE'S ALREADY ALMOST BEAT HIM, LOL

ONCE MORE. What happened to Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies? Why wasn't the US flush with new PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? Yes, we know Dubya had almost 2 million PUBLIC sector jobs, but he lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years (NOT counting the 4+ million in 2009)?

Obama may well have a higher growth rate over 8 years than Bush. He has had a Republican House several years and will have both a Republican House and Senate for his last two years. Now, how about comparing Obama's Unemployment rate for 8 years to Bush's.

Care to point to bills they passed? OOPS

 

[Dad2three]

Six mother scratching years of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named...

Lovely grasp of economics this is:

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

The Republican Party has pulled the wool over the eye's of the American people just so they can keep the super wealthy donating great sums of money to their campaigns


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.


The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.

• • The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


WHY GIVE THE 'JOB CREATORS' A TAX CUT? ALL THEY DO IT PARK IT OFFSHORE. A TAX CUT TO THE BOTTOM 90%, WHO TURN AROUND AND SPEND IT, DRIVES AN ECONOMY!!

Bush gave a tax cut to the bottom 90%. Did you forget that again?

ONCE MORE:

"A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Someone upthread said that the real estate market collapse was global. It wasn't. It was strictly "Made in America".

The worldwide banking system was brought down by the collapse of the US real estate market.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

It should also be pointed out that Carter was the guy who passed the Community Re-investment Act, which functioned without any crisis in foreclosures, or even major losses by the lenders, until it was used by greed Wall Street bankers to excuse poor lending practices in the sub-prime market.

Conservatives has been using the CRA as an excuse for the excesses of greed and poor lending brought about by Bush's low lending rates and a Republican Congress and Senate de-regulating Wall Street.

I have noted that conservatives busily re-write history to suit their politics and to find a way to blame Democrats when anything goes wrong, but the bald fact is that Republicans are fiscal idiots, who haven't the vaguest notion of how to manage the US budget.

Democrats are demonized as the "tax and spend" party, but those taxes are to pay for their spending, and they have the good sense to fund their programs. Notice how "tax" comes before spend.

Republicans cut taxes and think that increased revenues will cover the cuts. It didn't work under Reagan, and it sure as hell didn't work under Bush II. To add insult to injury, Bush II added Medicaid Part D without any corresponding tax to fund it. Lunacy!

Bush was so economically challenged, he crashed the US economy and nearly took the rest of the world down with it. That is some spectacular stupidity, and yet the current bunch are Republicans are talking about doing the same dumb things that Bush did.

Canada's banks were spared from the collapse because our liberal government refused to deregulate Canadian banks.

That's awesome! What are reserve requirements in the Great White North, eh?

Canadian Banks are not subject to US law... which required banks to set aside sound, actuarial lending principle, and substitute such with a perverted notion of fairness... Also... Canadian banks were not guaranteed against losses by the US Federal Government, when sub-standard mortgagees failed to service their debt.

So.. as is nearly always the case... Canada is irrelevant.

Also... Canadian banks were not guaranteed against losses by the US Federal Government

American banks weren't guaranteed against losses either.
They lost hundreds of billions.

Well, they literally were guaranteed against losses, it's just the guarantees were issued by unprincipled sub-humans, OKA: Leftists. Therefore, they were not worth the paper they were written upon.

Well, they literally were guaranteed against losses

No they weren't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

The Republican Party has pulled the wool over the eye's of the American people just so they can keep the super wealthy donating great sums of money to their campaigns


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.


The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.

• • The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


WHY GIVE THE 'JOB CREATORS' A TAX CUT? ALL THEY DO IT PARK IT OFFSHORE. A TAX CUT TO THE BOTTOM 90%, WHO TURN AROUND AND SPEND IT, DRIVES AN ECONOMY!!

Bush gave a tax cut to the bottom 90%. Did you forget that again?

ONCE MORE:

"A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies."

"A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies."

From 2001-2008, how much did the top 1% pay of all income taxes paid?
How much did the bottom 60% pay?

 

[Dad2three]

A wing nutter who doesn't want to pay his bills. Shocking. I thought the REASON the Dubya tax cuts were to 'create jobs' through 'job creator' policies? lol

Dubya/GOP took US from 20%+ of GDP in federal tax revenues to less than 15% (Korean war levels) AS they blew up spending!!!!

And the spending keeps going on and on. Obama's lowest deficit is higher than any of Bush's. Unemplloyment averaged 5.8% during Bush's 8 years. Not a lot of room for creating jobs if everyone that wants one already has one.

Weird, Dubya had a $1.2+ trillion deficit his last F/Y that started Oct 1, 2008. AS OF JAN 8, 2009, 12 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA???


CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

UNEMPLOYMENT AVERAGED? Oh you mean he inherited less than 4% unemployment and with his ponzi scheme and borrowing, created a false economy? What was the trend like Dubya's last year again? lol



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?


A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!


A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you think that all happened in a Repub vacuum right?
Who publicly challenge Freddi and Fanny,and who said everything was fine?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.

President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote home ownership."

Weird, Dubya's working group said:

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets


CLINTON??? LOL WHAT WAS HIS DEFAULT RATE???

Seriously? 2004 EXTENDING INTO 2007?


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

NOT Bush changing Clinton's rules on Freddie/Fannie NOT allowing subprimer loans to count torward the affordabler housing goals (2004)

Or Dubya REQUIRING F/F to buy $440 BILLION in MBS's to meet his 'home ownership goals' (2003)

Or Dubya fighting ALL 50 states oin who enforces 'predatory' lenders invoking a civil war era rule saying BIG FEDERAL GOV'T did (2003, though the states won in court in 2009)

Or Dubya ignoring the MANY warnings from REGULATORS including the FBI warning of an EPIDEMIC OF MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT COULD RIVAL THE S&L CRISIS (2004) Where Dubya gutted the white collar crimes by 2,200+ agents instead?



MANY MORE AT MY LINK. SEE WHAT A LINK IS BUBBA

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

"Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs"..
It did?
Prove it..
Then define "job".....

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.


Economists agree Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Did you even read that USA Today article, Dad? The gist of it is that economists DON'T agree! They don't agree that the stimulus created 3 million jobs. Some think it did...some think it had a minor impact on job creation...and some don't think it had any affect at all.

Here's my question for you...

The economy is growing faster NOW than it has in years...correct? Are we doing massive government stimulus to make that happen? Big infrastructure spending? I think we can all agree the answer to that is NO? So why is the economy growing faster now?

Got it, you can't be honest. Shocking....

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."





You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama and getting regulators back on the beat, despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used and are now going into their 2-3 recession), the US is moving forward, despite the GOP effort otherwise? YES

WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WORK AGAIN?? LOL

80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

Sure, blow $800 billion plus, you'll create some jobs.
Obozo could recommend $400 billion for digging holes with shovels and $400 billion for filling them in.
You'd create lots of jobs, and at the end you'd have nothing.
The question is, what did we produce for that $800 billion?

You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used

What is austerity and why do you think other nations are using it?

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again? lol

According to economists, the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression. It worked. How about tax cuts? lol

 

[Dad2three]

WRONG.
The Real Reagan Economic Record Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century

You lose again.

YOU MEAN THE GOP CONGRESS CAME OUT WITH A REPORT CLAIMING CREDIT FOR CLINTON'S BOOM WAS CAUSED BY RONNIE? LOL

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES AND BLEW UP SPENDING?


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.


This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”

Vox Verax The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.


In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY? OH RIGHT TRIPLING THE DEBT AS HE GUTTED REVENUES

Reagan gutted revenues? What were they in 1981? In 1989?

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?


EVEN WITH HIS 11 TAX REVENUES INCREASES?

Carter had 19%+ of GDP his final F/Y

Ronnie took US to 17.8%

BUT INCOME TAXES WENT FROM 9.1% OF GDP TO 8% (OF COURSE POPPY BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%, STUCK POPPY BUSH AT 7.4%-7.5%, LOL)


YOU KNOW THEY MEASURE IT GDP TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE PEOPLE ENTERING THE WORKFORCE AND INFLATION RIGHT???? LOL


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

Oh you mean because Ronnie increased SS taxes by 60% AND STILL blew up the debt?
Liberals didn't want Reagan to save Social Security? LOL!

BUSH INHERITED THE MASS OF RONNIE'S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AS THEY PULLED OUT AS MUCH AS THEY COULD HIS LAST 2 YEARS AT 28%,

Pulled out as much as they could? What does that even mean?

"No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Why do they have to pay for themselves?

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

You don't lose as much as stupid liberals predict. We knew that already.

"Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Like the hyperbole that Reagan gutted revenues.

"Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

The Federal government gets less money and the people get more.
I'm looking for the downside in this scenario...........nope, don't see it.

The problem is you are dealing with an idiot.

Bush inherited Bill Clinton's higher tax rates. And Clinton got Bush sr's rates. Remember when he renegged on his pledge and they raised taxes? Yeah. That. Bush's tax cuts were repealed and Democrats have added significant new taxes at the end of Obama's second year. Revenues are at record heights yet the deficit is where it was before the recession hit. More money to the government is the problem, not the answer.

Weird I thought CONS were complaining SS was BK? How did Ronnie 'save it'? Oh you mean he used the money to hide the REAL cost of his tax cuts for the rich?


NO, CLINTON INHERITED POPPY'S 31% TOP RATE . CLINTON CREATED 3 MORE TAX BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE FROM 31% (POPPY WENT FROM 28% TO 31%) TO 39.6%, LOL

Dems STILL haven't got rid of Dubya's tax cuts AND tax revenues STILL lag behind Carter/Clinton's revenues! Revenues record highs? lo. Oh right GOPers 'math'

ECONOMISTS MEASURE IT VIA GDP, TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION AND POP GROWTH BUBBA



HONESTY. TRY IT BUBBA

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs"..
It did?
Prove it..
Then define "job".....

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.


Economists agree Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Did you even read that USA Today article, Dad? The gist of it is that economists DON'T agree! They don't agree that the stimulus created 3 million jobs. Some think it did...some think it had a minor impact on job creation...and some don't think it had any affect at all.

Here's my question for you...

The economy is growing faster NOW than it has in years...correct? Are we doing massive government stimulus to make that happen? Big infrastructure spending? I think we can all agree the answer to that is NO? So why is the economy growing faster now?

Got it, you can't be honest. Shocking....

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."





You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama and getting regulators back on the beat, despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used and are now going into their 2-3 recession), the US is moving forward, despite the GOP effort otherwise? YES

WHY DIDN'T DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WORK AGAIN?? LOL

80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

Sure, blow $800 billion plus, you'll create some jobs.
Obozo could recommend $400 billion for digging holes with shovels and $400 billion for filling them in.
You'd create lots of jobs, and at the end you'd have nothing.
The question is, what did we produce for that $800 billion?

You mean thanks to fiscal responsibility of Prez Obama

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

despite listening to right wingers who wanted austerity (which other nations used

What is austerity and why do you think other nations are using it?

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again? lol

According to economists, the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression. It worked. How about tax cuts? lol

How many jobs did Dubya's tax cuts create again?

More than Obama's tax hikes.

the $787 billion was to stop US from going back into ANOTHER conservative (GOP) depression

Yeah, bailing out government employee unions was just what we needed to save our economy. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

The Republican Party has pulled the wool over the eye's of the American people just so they can keep the super wealthy donating great sums of money to their campaigns


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.


The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.

• • The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


WHY GIVE THE 'JOB CREATORS' A TAX CUT? ALL THEY DO IT PARK IT OFFSHORE. A TAX CUT TO THE BOTTOM 90%, WHO TURN AROUND AND SPEND IT, DRIVES AN ECONOMY!!

Bush gave a tax cut to the bottom 90%. Did you forget that again?

ONCE MORE:

"A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies."

"A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies."

From 2001-2008, how much did the top 1% pay of all income taxes paid?
How much did the bottom 60% pay?

Well I know the top 1% of US TOOK 20% of the pie where the bottom 50% (FIFTY TIMES THE FAMILIES) of US received about half of that income. How much should they pay?

 

[Dad2three]

Six mother scratching years of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named...

Lovely grasp of economics this is:

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

The Republican Party has pulled the wool over the eye's of the American people just so they can keep the super wealthy donating great sums of money to their campaigns


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.


The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.

• • The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


WHY GIVE THE 'JOB CREATORS' A TAX CUT? ALL THEY DO IT PARK IT OFFSHORE. A TAX CUT TO THE BOTTOM 90%, WHO TURN AROUND AND SPEND IT, DRIVES AN ECONOMY!!

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts.



And they were making what % of the payments before the cuts? What % of the payments after the cuts?

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.


Top 1% had 6%-9% of the PIE from 1945-1980 but TOOK 23% by 2007. Down to about 20% today




In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And this has been due to Republcian economic policies that began under Bush. It wasn't just Bush, it has been this philosophy that cutting taxes for the wealthy and keeping wages low benefits the economy. It does not. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in my lifetime. It is more than obvious that demand is what drives the economy, not supply. Increase demand, and the economy improves. Make the middle class stronger, and less people will require government assistance.

Bush cut taxes for everyone that got a wage or a salary. That included the middle class, which made them 'stronger.' How would you make the middle class 'stronger'? Raise their taxes, perhaps?

That one always got me,when asked who enjoyed the largest tax cut,the left will default without question to the rich,which is false.
They can't tell you why they say that ,its just they did.

The Republican Party has pulled the wool over the eye's of the American people just so they can keep the super wealthy donating great sums of money to their campaigns


The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts. The lower 60% of filers (making less than $67,715) received less than 20% of the total benefit of Bush’s tax policies.


The Bush-era tax cuts were designed to reduce taxes for the wealthy, and the benefits of faster growth were then supposed to trickle down to the middle class. But the economic impact of cutting capital gains rates and lowering the top marginal tax rates never materialized for working families. Inflation-adjusted median weekly earnings fell by 2.3% during the 2002-07 economic expansion, which holds the distinction for being the worst economic expansion since World War II.

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute



Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.

• • The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


WHY GIVE THE 'JOB CREATORS' A TAX CUT? ALL THEY DO IT PARK IT OFFSHORE. A TAX CUT TO THE BOTTOM 90%, WHO TURN AROUND AND SPEND IT, DRIVES AN ECONOMY!!

A distributional analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes shows that the top 1% of earners (making over $620,442) received 38% of the tax cuts.



And they were making what % of the payments before the cuts? What % of the payments after the cuts?

Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.


Top 1% had 6%-9% of the PIE from 1945-1980 but TOOK 23% by 2007. Down to about 20% today




In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 2007, what percent of total income taxes did they pay?

 

[Dad2three]

Republicans have no place in democrat America. Democrats have no place in republican America.

Not a problem. Democrats can get the hell out of here. They hate America anyway.

You mean those LIBERALS WHO CREATED AMERICA? While the conservatives (Torry) stood with King George?

the "liberals" who created America created a nation with a limited government so people would govern themselves. The progressives coopted the term in the 1930s when people saw them foe the totalitarians they were.

conservatives fight to restore the limited government of the nation. We fight to conserve the constitution and the republic our Founders established because we love liberty and understand the need for checks on human nature

You lie! Conservatives want a police state, military industrial complex for the elite to use against us depriving us of our wealth.

Here we go again....

Conservatives as a monolith.

You have that idiot out in Nevada who stood up to Federal Marshals (at least find a good cause). That's wanting a police state ?

The guy squatting on feds land and refusing to pay his taxes/fees? Shocking you support him...

 

[Listening]

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

funny. I thought we were supposed to be praising Obama because he fixed our economy. Now the wages are too low.

you need to work on making your talking points consistent

You're a dumbass if you think I ever said Obama fixed the economy. He greatly improved it sure, but much work still needs to be done.

obama 'greatly improved the economy'?

Specifically... in what way?

His stimulus alone created 3 million jobs.

ROTFLMAO