POTUS Debate II: The Empire Strikes Back at the Wrath of Electric Mittensaloo

[DGuller]

No apologies ever, and missiles in Poland for everyone.

Which end of the missiles?

[Ed Anger]

Mart is hoping feet first.

[CountDeMoney]

No apologies ever, and missiles in Poland for everyone.

Which end of the missiles?

Richard Williamson wants most of them pointed at the Soviet Union.

The rest will be pointing at Wiktor.  LOL "WIKTOR"

[Fate]

I'm tempted to vote for Romney.

I think Obama will still win.

[FunkMonk]

The rest will be pointing at Wiktor.  LOL "WIKTOR"

[11B4V]

I'm tempted to vote for Romney.

I think Obama will still win.

I already did.

For Obamination

[sbr]

I got my vote by mail ballot yesterday.  Haven't filled it out yet.

[11B4V]

We need to work on a New Romney's Army joke about Siegy and outsourcing to China.  There's gotta be one in there somewhere.

That's a good idea. Outsource the military to China and hell India too. We could cut military pay by 2/3 and still be paying more than the chink soldiers get now. Win-Win

[CountDeMoney]

I got my vote by mail ballot yesterday.  Haven't filled it out yet.

Yeah, got my info packet, too.  Will probably knock out early voting at one of the centers next week to avoid the Christmas rush.

Interesting ballot initiatives this year:  big ones for gambling, and for same sex marriage.
Gonna vote for the gays, despite the gay assholes on Languish not named Sheilbh, and will probably ixnay the gambling.  It's such bullshit.

Of course, I will proudly vote for my man in the House:  Dutch Ruppersberger.

[Eddie Teach]

The rest will be pointing at Wiktor.  LOL "WIKTOR"

x2

[merithyn]

First I heard of this was in a Facebook meme, so I looked it up. Now, reading through CNN's fact check, it kind of sounds like it's true, but not because the presidents actually did anything specific to cause it. If that's the case, then basically, it doesn't matter what the president does. So why are we hammering them on the economy?

Clinton: Over Last 50 Years, Two-Thirds Of Private Sector Job Growth Came Under Democratic Presidents

(CNN) -- It was a big applause line, one of many for former President Bill Clinton Wednesday night.

Speaking to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, Clinton -- whose presidency unfolded during a boom era for the U.S. economy -- told delegates that Democratic administrations had a nearly 2-to-1 advantage over Republicans in creating jobs.

"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the job score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42."

Since Clinton repeatedly invoked "arithmetic" as the secret to his administration's success, we thought we'd check his.

The facts:

Clinton's math is a bit off, but not substantially.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures examined by CNN, he understated the net number of private jobs created under Democratic administrations and overstated the number of jobs created in GOP eras. But the ratio is basically correct: A net increase of 44.7 million jobs created during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations, compared to a 23.3 million figure during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bush administrations.

Republican numbers were crimped by recessions that occurred more frequently during their administrations -- in 1969 and 1973, 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007. The only recession to occur during a Democratic presidency was in early 1980, during the Carter administration, while the 2007 recession lasted nearly six months into the Obama administration. Democrats, meanwhile, were also helped by population growth: A bigger country should produce more jobs, and Democrats have held office for nearly 12 of the past 20 years.

Conclusion:

Economists constantly argue over which presidents get the credit or the blame for what happened on their watches, of course. But in terms of the numbers Clinton cited, his claim is remarkably close, and the discrepancy doesn't contradict his argument.

[Eddie Teach]

First I heard of this was in a Facebook meme, so I looked it up. Now, reading through CNN's fact check, it kind of sounds like it's true, but not because the presidents actually did anything specific to cause it. If that's the case, then basically, it doesn't matter what the president does. So why are we hammering them on the economy?

Cause there's a lot of voters who can't think(as far as politics goes at least) beyond how fat their wallets are.

[Ed Anger]

HEY NOW

[OttoVonBismarck]

First I heard of this was in a Facebook meme, so I looked it up. Now, reading through CNN's fact check, it kind of sounds like it's true, but not because the presidents actually did anything specific to cause it. If that's the case, then basically, it doesn't matter what the president does. So why are we hammering them on the economy?

Clinton: Over Last 50 Years, Two-Thirds Of Private Sector Job Growth Came Under Democratic Presidents

(CNN) -- It was a big applause line, one of many for former President Bill Clinton Wednesday night.

Speaking to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, Clinton -- whose presidency unfolded during a boom era for the U.S. economy -- told delegates that Democratic administrations had a nearly 2-to-1 advantage over Republicans in creating jobs.

"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the job score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42."

Since Clinton repeatedly invoked "arithmetic" as the secret to his administration's success, we thought we'd check his.

The facts:

Clinton's math is a bit off, but not substantially.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures examined by CNN, he understated the net number of private jobs created under Democratic administrations and overstated the number of jobs created in GOP eras. But the ratio is basically correct: A net increase of 44.7 million jobs created during the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations, compared to a 23.3 million figure during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bush administrations.

Republican numbers were crimped by recessions that occurred more frequently during their administrations -- in 1969 and 1973, 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007. The only recession to occur during a Democratic presidency was in early 1980, during the Carter administration, while the 2007 recession lasted nearly six months into the Obama administration. Democrats, meanwhile, were also helped by population growth: A bigger country should produce more jobs, and Democrats have held office for nearly 12 of the past 20 years.

Conclusion:

Economists constantly argue over which presidents get the credit or the blame for what happened on their watches, of course. But in terms of the numbers Clinton cited, his claim is remarkably close, and the discrepancy doesn't contradict his argument.

There is an article in the Atlantic addressing a similar claim (related to stock market performance, not job creation.) It's true that the economy has done better under Democrat Presidents, but the specifics show that it's mostly the result of the fact that Hoover was President when the Great Depression began and FDR / Truman were Presidents when the economy got better, and Bush was the President when the Great Recession began and Obama was President when the stock market came back. The Clinton economic bump helped (as did the Reagan bump for the Republicans.) The size of the swing relating to the Great Depression however is so large that all those other minor recessions had very little if any impact on the overall picture.

Link

Some key points:

Does this video show that Republican presidents are bad for the stock market? Or that Democratic presidents are the magic elixir of growth? Not even. The executive branch isn't the entire government, government isn't the entire U.S. economy, and even the entire U.S. economy can't explain global forces that move equity prices.

But this statistic is really an indication of Black Swans rather than planned policies. To the extent that Democrats are marshaling this video to make a point about the president, it bears reminding that the major differences between Obama and Romney -- tax policy and welfare spending -- played small if non-existent roles in the crises that depressed stock market performance under Republicans. As the video shows, the difference is almost entirely explained by the fact that both the Great Recession and the Great Depression began under a Republican administration and were resolved under the next administration, which was Democratic.

Now we can argue all day about Republican economic policies, but there is little evidence to suggest Herbert Hoover deserves any specific blame for the Great Depression. He may deserve some blame for his response to it, but no serious economist blames Hoover for it happening. Hoover deserves blame for the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that he passed. With the Great Recession, Bush also deserves little blame. It's pretty simple what happened, there was a massive housing bubble. When it burst, it took out a lot of associated industries including home building and insurers and banks that were heavily exposed. (For some reason on the left people rail on about the Bush tax cuts and his wars as if they are related to the Great Recession--they really aren't, and I don't understand how people can perpetuate blatantly false economic theory/history like that.)

[derspiess]

The rest will be pointing at Wiktor.  LOL "WIKTOR"