Jump to content

Hmm. Haven't seen this mentioned

westend1

By westend1
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, westend1 said:

This is the hidden content, please

You havent seen it mentioned because it did not take place for the last seven years but finally showed up on this report.  Those are good numbers and I contend it could/should have happened a lot sooner if less of this  country's economic resources had been directed toward government efforts.  A couple of quick thoughts-  The poverty rate came down but it came down from an all time high that occurred during the current administration.  Median income had a sizeable jump but was way overdue for that and it is still below the median income when Mr. Bush was in office.  The other "spike the football after a touchdown" point was the lowering of people uninsured.  We have yet to see what the ultimate cost of that will be but my guess is that if one does a cost/benefit analysis, it will seem overtly expensive and perhaps unsustainable.  Nearly all of the economic problems we face could be resolved with more vigorous economic growth.  But when the government becomes too large of a part of the economy, it isnt going to happen as evidenced by a GDP of less than 2% during a long recovery which is about half of what GDP has been for recession recoveries in modern times.  Additionally, since Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty", look at the rate when he was in office versus where it is now.  You will see very little difference despite the gazillions of dollars that have been poured into that effort.  From my viewpoint, this article is a little bit like an article that says " LeBron James quadruples his scoring in game 6".  Only problem is, he had 7 points in game 5.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS Wildcats

BS Wildcats

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Sure,  So you are just like a Dem.  No difference.  Just as I have always said.

Far different from a Dem.  Don't believe in murdering babies or letting a queer use the bathroom they associate there gender with.  I would hate to know I associate myself with those type of people.  Guess it doesn't bother you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted

 When Mr. Obama assumed the Presidency, we were at the very bottom of a substantial recession.  So the numbers couldnt have looked any worse than they did when he took office.  The cyclicality of the economy is responsible for a goodly portion of the improvement since then.  This is evident by the FACT that there has NEVER been a recession/economic slowdown from which we did not recover, regardless of who was in office.  Therefore, to state that "I/we created x number of jobs is garbage.  The majority of those jobs would have come about if Al Gore or John McCain or Michael Dukakis had been in office at that time.  So its a bit disengenuous to claim that certain policies or approaches is/are what caused the jobs picture to improve.  I will continue to believe that the free enterprise system is at its best and most productive when it has as little government intrusion as possible and that we should make a concentrated effort to allow a hard working individual to keep as much of what he earns as possible-  this will ultimately be more beneficial to the overall economic health of the nation.  Furthermore, I believe very strongly that you cannot legislate away poverty and there will always be some who have more than others.  Isn't it odd that people from all over the world want to come here for a better life but we seem bound and determined to adopt policies that will make us more like the countries they have left to come to the United States.  I still think we should seek equal opportunities rather than equal outcomes, orchestrated by an inefficient and unaccountable government.  Finally, as I have said many times, Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, and Detroit are classic examples of why socialism or quasi socialism do not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS Wildcats

BS Wildcats

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, westend1 said:

No it doesn't.   But we were talking about something else.  Try to focus.  Even if it is just for a few minutes.   "There" gender has nothing to do with this discussion.

My bad,"their".  You said I was just like a Dem.  Just letting you know I am very than a Dem. Since it doesn't bother you that Dems are ok with murdering babies, says a lot about your values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, westend1 said:

One gets the blame, one doesn't.  I get it.

You are spot on BS Wildcats.  I love to hear someone lamenting the fact that Mr. Obama could be criticized or discredited for his handling of the economy.  Those same "lamenters" were all over Mr. Bush for the sub prime mortgage debacle and attendant economic decline, giving him  full credit for it when he had very little to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted

The irony of this article for me.  I saw it on the news about two hours after I read an article talking about the growth of tent cities, within big cities, for the homeless, many of whom were recently middle class.  And the expectations of more growth (of tent cities) as this economy is a disaster to the lower, to middle class.  Oddly enough, CBS didn't mention that.

The slow introduction of America into Socialism is already showing signs of third world living conditions.  But how would the Dems respond?  Move along here.  Nothing to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,966
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    yielder
    Newest Member
    yielder
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...