Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your country was out of recession by 1940.
Primarily through profiteering out of WWII - it must be added.
FDR was elected in 1932.
You do the math.
"Your country".. And what country would YOUR country be?
I think for the record we should know what country posters are from because nothing worse than an "outsider" telling us how we should live and dictate policies that dont affect them.
So you're ready to join the Obama version of the CCC and plant a million trees?
Or are you just willing to sit back and draw a government check and do nothing for it?
"Roosevelt was not interested in the dole. He was was determined, rather, to preserve the pride of American workers in their own ability to earn a living, so he concentrated on creating jobs."
I haven't seen any jobs created yet by Obama, have you?
And it was WW II that pulled this country out of the "recession" you talk about...
I'm in Europe - so no, thankfully I am not dependent upon your country's basketcase economy.
With regard to FDR, he implemented economic policies which helped your country out of recession.
Ultimately these policies also helped your lot profiteer from the misery of WW2 raging in Europe too, but we will leave that aside for the moment.
The only party that is capable of saving your economy is your goverment.
Neither your country banks, corporations, hedge funds are capable (or willing) to help your country out of the recession.
"Your country".. And what country would YOUR country be?
I think for the record we should know what country posters are from because nothing worse than an "outsider" telling us how we should live and dictate policies that dont affect them.
Europe.
And if your kind don't like being lectured, tough.
And if your kind don't like being lectured, tough.
I'll care about what "your kind" has to say when I go to the Europe forums and start to dictate what laws you guys should pass and discuss your own economic reforms.
Liberals note, you guys like to pretend that Obama has made those world wide respect "our kind".. Obviously you are wrong..
Indurain, do you care to clarify by what you mean by "your kind".. Americans, or just those of us who support our Constitution?
The libs blame Bush for 9-11 and all that happened and that was when he was in less than 9 months. Can't have it both ways you know.
Trying to equate the two is utterly disingenuous.
Bush was given all the information and intelligence he needed to either take action or at least be on the alert. He IGNORED it. Flat out IGNORED it and DID NOTHING.
Obama came in with all the information at hand and is DOING SOMETHING about it.
You may not like what he's doing, but don't dare try to compare someone who IGNORED information with someone who's ACTING ON information. It's ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie
But the bigger problem is that employment is a lagging indicator. It will be the last economic statistic to turn around. President Obama knows this, as do economists and most people who are paying attention. Presenting employment as an indicator of improvement in the economy in this fashion is misleading.
Not just misleading, but also utterly disingenuous.
I'll care about what "your kind" has to say when I go to the Europe forums and start to dictate what laws you guys should pass and discuss your own economic reforms.
Liberals note, you guys like to pretend that Obama has made those world wide respect "our kind".. Obviously you are wrong..
Indurain, do you care to clarify by what you mean by "your kind".. Americans, or just those of us who support our Constitution?
Your kind = American.
It makes no difference to me whether any of you claim to be Republic/Democratic/other.
It's immaterial to me. I could not be bothered to discriminate.
You're American full stop.
And with regard to Obama : he's correct to be spending to stimulate the economy.
You really ought to familiarise yerself with Keynesian economics, and the effects of the 1930's depression and the resolution of same.
Bush was given all the information and intelligence he needed to either take action or at least be on the alert. He IGNORED it. Flat out IGNORED it and DID NOTHING.
Obama came in with all the information at hand and is DOING SOMETHING about it.
You may not like what he's doing, but don't dare try to compare someone who IGNORED information with someone who's ACTING ON information. It's ridiculous. Not just misleading, but also utterly disingenuous.
oooh please..
Comparing the timeline is a great comparison, you just dont like it. I didnt see you objecting to all of those threads about how Obama has kept us safer as just "disingenuous".. Why not?
But lets for the sake of pretend, accept YOUR argument..
Bush was given all the information about terrorists and ignored it (your argument), and then when something happened, he took action to stop it from taking place again.
Obama was given all the information about unemployment and is "doing something about it"..
Which has been more successful?
I really find it pathetic that Democrats dont mind spending money to "save the economy" but yelled and screamed when it involved spending money to "stop terrorists"..
Bush was given all the information and intelligence he needed to either take action or at least be on the alert. He IGNORED it. Flat out IGNORED it and DID NOTHING.
Obama came in with all the information at hand and is DOING SOMETHING about it.
You may not like what he's doing, but don't dare try to compare someone who IGNORED information with someone who's ACTING ON information. It's ridiculous. Not just misleading, but also utterly disingenuous.
I don't think the analogy is diseingenous at all. Since Obamanots are soo keen on blaming Bush 10 months into Obama's term. 9/11 framework was set on Clinton's watch, you know, when he did absolutely NOTHING about the World Trade bombings. In fact, the Clinton Admin knew EXACTLY where Osama Bin Laden was, but they didn't think they could try him in NYC, so they just let it go. Didn't see Bush blaming Clinton for what happened on his watch. Yet Obama continues to blame Bush for the bad and take credit for the good. Can't have it both ways.
Thank you for playing. Your concession prize is behind door number 3.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
