Presidents don't matter to the economy

[Rams]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html

It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud.  LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy.   

[wetwillie]

Rams post

[Stupid Fitz]

Bush's fault

[Rams]

Bush's fault

Yeah that's kind of my point.  Bush had little to no effect on the economy.  Just like Clinton and Obama and Bush Sr. and Reagan and every other president we've ever had.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html

It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud.  LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy.   

Not completely true.  Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.

[Rams]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html

It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud.  LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy.   

Not completely true.  Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.

That's only partially correct, IMO.  Control of the Congress is ultimately more important than who the President is, but even that means very little in terms of what happens with the economy.  The dirty little secret that no politician is willing to admit is that there is almost nothing they can do, other than enormous sweeping legislation like the New Deal, that has any major effect on the economy as a whole.  Things like lowering/raising tax rates and most regulation/deregulation are mere blips on the radar and do virtually nothing to effect normal economic cycles. Even huge sweeping legislation takes so long to filter through the economy that there's really no way to separate it from all of the other variables to determine how much effect it actually has.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html

It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud.  LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy.   

Not completely true.  Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.

Off the top of my head, presidents can also issue executive orders banning all sorts of economic activity (e.g. offshore drilling), unilaterally shutdown economic projects (e.g. Keystone), dispatch regulatory agencies to create rules, regulations, legal opinions, interpretive letters, official guidance, etc. that are oppressive to industry (e.g. EPA), they can sign legislation that is oppressive or burdensome to industry (e.g. dodd-frank), they can create economic uncertainty by demanding sweeping legislation without any roadmap as to how its to be done (e.g. Health Care), they can threaten tax increases cutting into margins.

Seems like they can do a lot to stifle industry, maybe not a lot to grow it.

[Rams]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html

It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud.  LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy.   

Not completely true.  Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.

Off the top of my head, presidents can also issue executive orders banning all sorts of economic activity (e.g. offshore drilling), unilaterally shutdown economic projects (e.g. Keystone), dispatch regulatory agencies to create rules, regulations, legal opinions, interpretive letters, official guidance, etc. that are oppressive to industry (e.g. EPA), they can sign legislation that is oppressive or burdensome to industry (e.g. dodd-frank), they can create economic uncertainty by demanding sweeping legislation without any roadmap as to how its to be done (e.g. Health Care), they can threaten tax increases cutting into margins.

Seems like they can do a lot to stifle industry, maybe not a lot to grow it.

All those things you listed were done under President Obama and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010 and the Dow is up 30% in that time.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/president-matters-much-less-think-freakonomics-stephen-dubner-144453125.html

It's about rough ridin' time somebody said this out loud.  LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy.   

Not completely true.  Depends on who has control of the congress and what kind of lackeys are in charge to do the presidents bidding. The economy runs best when there's gridlock.

Off the top of my head, presidents can also issue executive orders banning all sorts of economic activity (e.g. offshore drilling), unilaterally shutdown economic projects (e.g. Keystone), dispatch regulatory agencies to create rules, regulations, legal opinions, interpretive letters, official guidance, etc. that are oppressive to industry (e.g. EPA), they can sign legislation that is oppressive or burdensome to industry (e.g. dodd-frank), they can create economic uncertainty by demanding sweeping legislation without any roadmap as to how its to be done (e.g. Health Care), they can threaten tax increases cutting into margins.

Seems like they can do a lot to stifle industry, maybe not a lot to grow it.

All those things you listed were done under President Obama and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010 and the Dow is up 30% in that time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Reading Comprehension.

Furthermore: 
1) the economic recovery is anemic by any metric and even worse by historic standards <--- fact
2) LOL at using the Dow as an economic metric (and stock performance metric, see S&P, Russell 2k, etc.).  When it was 14,000 under Bush, Obama was all "only rich people get rich off stocks"

[sys]

i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.

[Rams]

i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.

No.  Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.  See FSD's posts in this thread.  Poor guy's completely buffaloed.

[mortons toe]

i guess i thought people knew this, but i dunno.

No.  Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.  See FSD's posts in this thread.  Poor guy's completely buffaloed.

Well, considering that Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010, I'd say you're the one that is buffaloed

and yet the economy has grown every quarter since 2010

[LickNeckey]

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

 

[Rams]

Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.

Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

 

 

[LickNeckey]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DOW_NEXT_STOP_13000?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-07-17-02-07

Now the Dow is within reach of the rarefied 13,000 mark - a level it hasn't seen since May 2008, four months before the financial system almost came apart.

Though there's a long way to go to get the country back to economic health, there are pockets of encouragement. Unemployment is still 8.3 percent, but it's the lowest since February 2009. Economic output grew every quarter last year.

[Rams]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DOW_NEXT_STOP_13000?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-07-17-02-07

Now the Dow is within reach of the rarefied 13,000 mark - a level it hasn't seen since May 2008, four months before the financial system almost came apart.

Though there's a long way to go to get the country back to economic health, there are pockets of encouragement. Unemployment is still 8.3 percent, but it's the lowest since February 2009. Economic output grew every quarter last year.

It just goes to show ya, publicly traded, privately owned companies can really grow at a nice clip when we have a Socialist POTUS.  amirite?

[LickNeckey]

GROWTH STIFLED READING COMPREHENSION RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE 

my best attempt at FSD. 

it really isn't as easy as it looks

[8manpick]

Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.

Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

 

 

What's so funny?  1.7% is nearly a 50% decrease from 3.0%.  Toe Morton makes a great point here.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.

Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

 

 

What's so funny?  1.7% is nearly a 50% decrease from 3.0%.  Toe Morton makes a great point here.

He would have if he had said real GDP growth was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than in 2010.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Most people are idiots and just repeat what politicians tell them.

Real GDP was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than 2010

Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

 

 

What's so funny?  1.7% is nearly a 50% decrease from 3.0%.  Toe Morton makes a great point here.

He would have if he had said real GDP growth was nearly 50% lower in 2011 than in 2010.

The toe's comment was taken out of context. He quoted a "growth" comment.

[Rams]

TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
Oh man!  That's a favorite of mine. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
Oh man!  That's a favorite of mine. 

It's ok that you didn't understand. LickNecky is a manipulating genius.

[LickNeckey]

bwaaaaa   haaaaaaa   haaaaaaaa

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Anyone that finds GDP growth rates of 1.7% and 3.0% coming out of this recession acceptable is either poorly educated, a person with mental retardation or an Obama shill (which necessarily implies one of the first two). 

There hasn't been a post recession recovery this pathetic in decades.  To think US Govt policy has nothing to do with that is incredibly naive and flat out stupid.


In liberalconomics all economic data begins with the bottom point of the "great recession", and even then we're only doing "okay".  goodness gracious, the Obamabots have reached new levels of ignorance and delusion.  To point to unemployment rates at 8.3% as a sign of improvement is a horrifying transgression.

LickNeckey, you're my man, but you've got to stop riling up the unwashed masses.  You're going to cause them look like idiots when they ultimately leave the interwebs and propound their new found mis/contra-knowledge in the real world.

[Rams]

Anyone that finds GDP growth rates of 1.7% and 3.0% coming out of this recession acceptable is either poorly educated, a person with mental retardation or an Obama shill (which necessarily implies one of the first two). 

There hasn't been a post recession recovery this pathetic in decades.  To think US Govt policy has nothing to do with that is incredibly naive and flat out stupid.


In liberalconomics all economic data begins with the bottom point of the "great recession", and even then we're only doing "okay".  goodness gracious, the Obamabots have reached new levels of ignorance and delusion.  To point to unemployment rates at 8.3% as a sign of improvement is a horrifying transgression.

LickNeckey, you're my man, but you've got to stop riling up the unwashed masses.  You're going to cause them look like idiots when they ultimately leave the interwebs and propound their new found mis/contra-knowledge in the real world.

LOL at all you retards that just regurgitate what you've been told about how President X destroyed/grew the economy.