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

[Dad2three]

Lol oh really? Businesses just now are picking up? Don't be dumb. We've had consistent private sector job growth since 6 months into Obama's presidency.

Would you care to point to a single Obama initiative that's created those jobs in the private sector, Billy? The thing that's leading the surge in the economy right now is gas and oil production. Our fearless leader has done everything he could possibly do to hamper the production of fossil fuels...so obviously the jobs created there aren't his to claim! The truth of the matter is that they were created DESPITE Barack Obama!

Really? That's how tiny your brain is? TECHNOLOGY created the boom in natural resources, and NO, Obama didn't want 'all of the above' *Shaking head*

Hint DEMAND drives the economy, without it the natural resources are not mined!

Demand for oil and natural gas has actually gone down...so explain why production has increased dramatically?

TECHNOLOGY

Name one "technology" that Barack Obama has supported in the fossil fuels industries that has led to an increase in production?

Wow, even without me wanting to do that, technology was responsible? Cool


STRICTER GAS MILEAGE STANDARDS, lol

 

[Dad2three]

I actually was not talking about Obama directly, but sure. Let's talk about this now.

First, hasn't it been repeated often enough on this board that presidents do not have control over oil prices? So please provide me with a link showing evidence of how Obama has actually tried to escape this fact and, irrationally, keep gas prices high.

Yer kidding, right?

Obama blocks Bristol Bay oil gas development - Elana Schor and Alex Guill n - POLITICO
PICKET Flashback - Oil drilling permits down 36 percent under Obama - Washington Times
By Blocking Gulf Drilling Obama Costs Jobs and Raises Gas Prices - US News
American Energy Roadblocks by the Obama Administration - House Committee on Natural Resources

Second, show me where Obama has actually made it a significant part of his program as president to tackle fracking. I am a voter living in a state where fracking is exponentially ramping up the number of earthquakes, and I would love to have another reason to vote Democrat.

Third, definitely please provide a link.

Obama lacks the power to block fracking on private land, but peruse the above links and it's clear that he has actively sought to frustrate domestic oil production.

Exactly, Uncensored...which is why I found it so amusing to watch Obama lay claim to gains in natural gas and oil production as an "accomplishment" of his administration.

Weird, I bet you blamed Obama for the gas prices when they were higher though? lol...

 

[Oldstyle]

I actually was not talking about Obama directly, but sure. Let's talk about this now.

First, hasn't it been repeated often enough on this board that presidents do not have control over oil prices? So please provide me with a link showing evidence of how Obama has actually tried to escape this fact and, irrationally, keep gas prices high.

Yer kidding, right?

Obama blocks Bristol Bay oil gas development - Elana Schor and Alex Guill n - POLITICO
PICKET Flashback - Oil drilling permits down 36 percent under Obama - Washington Times
By Blocking Gulf Drilling Obama Costs Jobs and Raises Gas Prices - US News
American Energy Roadblocks by the Obama Administration - House Committee on Natural Resources

Second, show me where Obama has actually made it a significant part of his program as president to tackle fracking. I am a voter living in a state where fracking is exponentially ramping up the number of earthquakes, and I would love to have another reason to vote Democrat.

Third, definitely please provide a link.

Obama lacks the power to block fracking on private land, but peruse the above links and it's clear that he has actively sought to frustrate domestic oil production.

Exactly, Uncensored...which is why I found it so amusing to watch Obama lay claim to gains in natural gas and oil production as an "accomplishment" of his administration.

Weird, I bet you blamed Obama for the gas prices when they were higher though? lol...

Has Barack Obama ever been secretive about his belief that higher gas prices would be necessary before America could be weaned off of fossil fuels?

 

[Dad2three]

The drop in gas prices is putting a massive amount of money in the pockets of Americans to be spent on other things. Rest assured that Barry will lay claim to any economic benefits from that as well even though low gas prices go completely counter to what he wanted. Anyone want to wager how long it's going to be before a liberal calls for a big bump in the gas tax?

You mean TECHNOLOGY created the boom? And the GOP wants to defund education and research? lol


Let's just follow Dubya/GOP lead of pushing people to 'shop' and give tax credits of $5,000+ to buy gas sucking SUV's, that will help US right? lol

Kindly explain why oil and natural gas production on Federally controlled lands is actually down under the Obama Administration when overall production of oil and natural gas is up substantially on lands controlled privately or by the States?

So who's REALLY responsible for all those new jobs created in the oil and natural gas industries? It certainly isn't Barack Obama! Quite obviously if he had control of all the oil and gas producing land in the US the price of gasoline would be $6 a gallon right now.

A big part of the trend can be attributed to the location of shale deposits where hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling have allowed producers to tap huge oil or natural gas resources.

Much of it is in Pennsylvania, where gas production has taken off. And it's common in Texas and North Dakota, states where the federal government owns far less land than it does in several Western energy-producing states.

“There are only so many dollars out there,” said Sarah Ladislaw, an energy expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noting the heavy industry investment in shale exploration outside of federal lands.

“When you overlay those two maps, the places to be weren’t necessarily on federal land,” said Ladislaw, co-director of the think tank’s Energy and National Security Program.

Obama GOP battle over credit for surging oil and gas production TheHill


BUT HEY, THE DEFICITS OBAMA INHERITED THANKS TO DUBYA/GOP POLICY (CREDIT CARDS MAXED OUT, GUTTING federal revenues 25% of GDP), WELL HELL, THOSE REST ON OBAMA'S SHOULDERS ALONE RIGHT? lol

 

[Dad2three]

I actually was not talking about Obama directly, but sure. Let's talk about this now.

First, hasn't it been repeated often enough on this board that presidents do not have control over oil prices? So please provide me with a link showing evidence of how Obama has actually tried to escape this fact and, irrationally, keep gas prices high.

Yer kidding, right?

Obama blocks Bristol Bay oil gas development - Elana Schor and Alex Guill n - POLITICO
PICKET Flashback - Oil drilling permits down 36 percent under Obama - Washington Times
By Blocking Gulf Drilling Obama Costs Jobs and Raises Gas Prices - US News
American Energy Roadblocks by the Obama Administration - House Committee on Natural Resources

Second, show me where Obama has actually made it a significant part of his program as president to tackle fracking. I am a voter living in a state where fracking is exponentially ramping up the number of earthquakes, and I would love to have another reason to vote Democrat.

Third, definitely please provide a link.

Obama lacks the power to block fracking on private land, but peruse the above links and it's clear that he has actively sought to frustrate domestic oil production.

Exactly, Uncensored...which is why I found it so amusing to watch Obama lay claim to gains in natural gas and oil production as an "accomplishment" of his administration.

Weird, I bet you blamed Obama for the gas prices when they were higher though? lol...

Has Barack Obama ever been secretive about his belief that higher gas prices would be necessary before America could be weaned off of fossil fuels?

Oh you meant part of LONG term policy. Smart policy that included higher energy standards the cons fought, and renewable's??? LOL

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So essentially, when the economy does well under a Democratic president, that was an event outside of his control. But when the economy does poorly under a Democratic president, that was a direct result of his policies. Got it, thanks.

dear, the general rule is that a libcommie can only harm an economy. If you believe otherwise please name a Democrat policy that can help rather than hurt an economy.

Isn't thinking fun?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

BUT HEY, THE DEFICITS OBAMA INHERITED THANKS TO DUBYA/GOP POLICY (CREDIT CARDS MAXED OUT, GUTTING federal revenues 25% of GDP), WELL HELL, THOSE REST ON OBAMA'S SHOULDERS ALONE RIGHT? lol

yes exactly since Obama and the Democrats have killed every Republican effort to make deficits and debt illegal.

Isn't thinking fun?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The percentage of people in workforce is declining because Boomers are retiring.

.

The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers set out to answer that very question.

Last month, it issued a report dryly titled: “The Labor Force Participation Rate Since 2007: Causes and Policy Implications” in which economists cite three key developments:

#1) America is just getting older

About half of the decline in worker participation over the last seven years is due to demographics — the workforce is simply aging. About one-sixth of the population was at or above retirement age in 2009, according to the report. By 2029, that number will increase to 25%, per the Social Security Administration.

meanwhile unemployment is 11.4% about 50% higher than before barry's long recession.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Republicans have had three Presidents who served for 20 years and they didn't do any of those things..

too stupid does not know that the President does not control the govt let alone the economy.

Krugman:
that’s their problem. What I want to ask instead is whether any of this makes sense. How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. But is this time different?
To understand why economists usually downplay the economic role of presidents, let’s revisit a much-mythologized episode in U.S. economic history: the recession and recovery of the 1980s.
On the right, of course, the 1980s are remembered as an age of miracles wrought by the blessed Reagan, who cut taxes, conjured up the magic of the marketplace and led the nation to job gains never matched before or since. In reality, the 16 million jobs America added during the Reagan years were only slightly more than the 14 million added over the previous eight years. And a later president — Bill something-or-other — presided over the creation of 22 million jobs. But who’s counting?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Articles of Confederation proved a small government is too ineffective and can't work.

if so our Founders would not have created a tiny tiny govt with no income tax and no Bill of Rights.

Isn't learning shocking??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Founders Were No Libertarians

Too stupid by 100000%. Our Founders were very very very libertarian. THe created a govt with no income tax or bill of rights. Would libertarians love to go back to our Founder's govt? Of course, and modern lib commie Democrats would hate our founders govt. Now you know why they spied for Hitler and Stalin.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Outlawing unions would violate the Freedom of Association provisions of the Constitution.

too stupid by 10000%. Freedom of assembly is fine of course but freedom to use violence to get higher wages is not.

Do you understand? Unions had been illegal despite the freedom to assemble peacefully.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reducing the U.S. population by 20 million would creat 40 million jobs?????? That's some wonky math you're using Eddie.
.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here. I'm sorry. If you ship the illegals home that would create 20 million new jobs, bring back 30 million more by making unions illegal again, and another 20 million by eliminating the corporate tax.

Get it 1+ 1=2

 

[Dad2three]

The Founders Were No Libertarians

Too stupid by 100000%. Our Founders were very very very libertarian. THe created a govt with no income tax or bill of rights. Would libertarians love to go back to our Founder's govt? Of course, and modern lib commie Democrats would hate our founders govt. Now you know why they spied for Hitler and Stalin.

THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS..


.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers


...The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified.


The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

The Washington Monthly

 

[Dad2three]

Reducing the U.S. population by 20 million would creat 40 million jobs?????? That's some wonky math you're using Eddie.
.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here. I'm sorry. If you ship the illegals home that would create 20 million new jobs, bring back 30 million more by making unions illegal again, and another 20 million by eliminating the corporate tax.

Get it 1+ 1=2

Dummy, stop it. You are looking MORE foolish than ever

 

[Dad2three]

BUT HEY, THE DEFICITS OBAMA INHERITED THANKS TO DUBYA/GOP POLICY (CREDIT CARDS MAXED OUT, GUTTING federal revenues 25% of GDP), WELL HELL, THOSE REST ON OBAMA'S SHOULDERS ALONE RIGHT? lol

yes exactly since Obama and the Democrats have killed every Republican effort to make deficits and debt illegal.

Isn't thinking fun?

Republican effort to make deficits and debt illegal? Sure, you mean by gutting revenues like Ronnie and Dubya? Then increasing spending? lol

“I used the phrase ‘charlatans and cranks’ in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don’t. “ — Greg Mankiw, chair of the G.W. Bush Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), advisor to Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reducing the U.S. population by 20 million would creat 40 million jobs?????? That's some wonky math you're using Eddie.
.

dear, you lack the IQ to be here. I'm sorry. If you ship the illegals home that would create 20 million new jobs, bring back 30 million more by making unions illegal again, and another 20 million by eliminating the corporate tax.

Get it 1+ 1=2

Dummy, stop it. You are looking MORE foolish than ever

of course if it was foolish dumbto3 would not be so afraid to why it is foolish. What does his fear teach us about the liberal IQ and integrity?

 

[Dad2three]

The percentage of people in workforce is declining because Boomers are retiring.

.

The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers set out to answer that very question.

Last month, it issued a report dryly titled: “The Labor Force Participation Rate Since 2007: Causes and Policy Implications” in which economists cite three key developments:

#1) America is just getting older

About half of the decline in worker participation over the last seven years is due to demographics — the workforce is simply aging. About one-sixth of the population was at or above retirement age in 2009, according to the report. By 2029, that number will increase to 25%, per the Social Security Administration.

meanwhile unemployment is 11.4% about 50% higher than before barry's long recession.

11.4%? lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Republican effort to make deficits and debt illegal? .

yes by proposing 30 Balanced Budget Amendment since Jefferson's first all of which were killed by the cancerous Democrats.

 

[Dad2three]

Republicans have had three Presidents who served for 20 years and they didn't do any of those things..

too stupid does not know that the President does not control the govt let alone the economy.

Krugman:
that’s their problem. What I want to ask instead is whether any of this makes sense. How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. But is this time different?
To understand why economists usually downplay the economic role of presidents, let’s revisit a much-mythologized episode in U.S. economic history: the recession and recovery of the 1980s.
On the right, of course, the 1980s are remembered as an age of miracles wrought by the blessed Reagan, who cut taxes, conjured up the magic of the marketplace and led the nation to job gains never matched before or since. In reality, the 16 million jobs America added during the Reagan years were only slightly more than the 14 million added over the previous eight years. And a later president — Bill something-or-other — presided over the creation of 22 million jobs. But who’s counting?

"too stupid does not know that the President does not control the govt let alone the economy."


THE VERY NEXT POST AFTER YOU SAID THIS:

"meanwhile unemployment is 11.4% about 50% higher than before barry's long recession."