There have been plenty of threads about how poorly the economy has performed under Obama. Several studies have demonstrated that the "recovery" has been the weakest following a recession in the last 100 years or more.

Well here are some interesting facts on which to cogitate. These are projections that came from the White House as part of Obama's budgetary requests.

Obama's first post recession budget - February 2010 - projected 5 year average growth 3.9% per year - actual 2.2% per year

Budget - 2012 - projected 5 year average growth 3.6% per year - actual (to date) 2%

Budget - 2013 - projected 4 year average growth 3.3% per year - actual (to date) 2.3%

So by the White House's own budgetary process, actual growth has been grossly overestimated over several budgets. Haven't they learned anything yet? Well, they've done their last.

Link

And yet Killary wants to maintain the same policies. Don't we learn anything from history?

And job growth still disappoints.

Link

So we're going to be stuck with 4 more years of the failed Dim policies. Sad.

(10-09-2016 07:30 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  And job growth still disappoints.

Link

So we're going to be stuck with 4 more years of the failed Dim policies. Sad.

Or 4 years of the Don policies.

55% approval rating.

I don't think Clinton's economic plans will be as draconian as people think. It seems to me that much of her economic positions were crafted to seek out Bernie supporters. IMHO, Clinton's primary goals weren't to win over independents but to drive turnout from her base. If Clinton becomes president she will do so as a Rockefeller Republican. She'll support TPP and NAFTA. IF she ultimately makes businesses competitive by reducing the corporate tax rates to at least mirror what they are in Europe - then IMHO she will go down as a solid president. In the end, it's going to be all about the economy. We will do best if we can maintain good trade relations and make the tax code attractive for businesses to stay in the U.S. and bring earnings made abroad back to the U.S.

She's fellating Obama and his policies because she has to. If she wants the turnout, she has no choice. She's no friend of Obama nor Sanders. She does not believe in either of these clowns policies over all. The only major issue that she would try to maintain from Obama is the healthcare program. Yes, it's huge. However, if she makes the right changes then it's quite possible that things could improve with healthcare. Ideally, it would be best if the clock can be turned back and the concept of health insurance - especially gov't health insurance - never came into existence. It's the biggest factor - by a significant margin - for why health costs are out of control today. Honestly, I don't see how we can ever go back to the days where gov't money is not entrenched in the healthcare system due to the sheer amount of work that would have to be undertaken to untangle the mess.

(10-09-2016 08:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think Clinton's economic plans will be as draconian as people think. It seems to me that much of her economic positions were crafted to seek out Bernie supporters. IMHO, Clinton's primary goals weren't to win over independents but to drive turnout from her base. If Clinton becomes president she will do so as a Rockefeller Republican. She'll support TPP and NAFTA. IF she ultimately makes businesses competitive by reducing the corporate tax rates to at least mirror what they are in Europe - then IMHO she will go down as a solid president. In the end, it's going to be all about the economy. We will do best if we can maintain good trade relations and make the tax code attractive for businesses to stay in the U.S. and bring earnings made abroad back to the U.S.

She's fellating Obama and his policies because she has to. If she wants the turnout, she has no choice. She's no friend of Obama nor Sanders. She does not believe in either of these clowns policies over all. The only major issue that she would try to maintain from Obama is the healthcare program. Yes, it's huge. However, if she makes the right changes then it's quite possible that things could improve with healthcare. Ideally, it would be best if the clock can be turned back and the concept of health insurance - especially gov't health insurance - never came into existence. It's the biggest factor - by a significant margin - for why health costs are out of control today. Honestly, I don't see how we can ever go back to the days where gov't money is not entrenched in the healthcare system due to the sheer amount of work that would have to be undertaken to untangle the mess.

Yep. Her primary goal is to get re-elected and the Clintons know that the economy has to be good for that to happen.

(10-09-2016 08:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think Clinton's economic plans will be as draconian as people think. It seems to me that much of her economic positions were crafted to seek out Bernie supporters. IMHO, Clinton's primary goals weren't to win over independents but to drive turnout from her base. If Clinton becomes president she will do so as a Rockefeller Republican. She'll support TPP and NAFTA. IF she ultimately makes businesses competitive by reducing the corporate tax rates to at least mirror what they are in Europe - then IMHO she will go down as a solid president. In the end, it's going to be all about the economy. We will do best if we can maintain good trade relations and make the tax code attractive for businesses to stay in the U.S. and bring earnings made abroad back to the U.S.

Sounds pretty much like Bill Clinton, 1993-2001. If we get that out of Hillary, I'll be happy. I'm just not at all certain that we will. One, she was always well to the left of Bill, and not as good with compromises he was. Two, Bill's views, at least for public consumption, have shifted pretty hard left from who he was in the white house. This may be just to keep Hillary in relatively good graces with lefty Obama, or it may be some kind of permanent shift, we'll have to wait and see.

Quote:She's fellating Obama and his policies because she has to. If she wants the turnout, she has no choice. She's no friend of Obama nor Sanders. She does not believe in either of these clowns policies over all. The only major issue that she would try to maintain from Obama is the healthcare program. Yes, it's huge. However, if she makes the right changes then it's quite possible that things could improve with healthcare. Ideally, it would be best if the clock can be turned back and the concept of health insurance - especially gov't health insurance - never came into existence. It's the biggest factor - by a significant margin - for why health costs are out of control today. Honestly, I don't see how we can ever go back to the days where gov't money is not entrenched in the healthcare system due to the sheer amount of work that would have to be undertaken to untangle the mess.

Bismarck. Provide truly universal care while getting the federal government pretty much out of the health care business.

(10-09-2016 08:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 08:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think Clinton's economic plans will be as draconian as people think. It seems to me that much of her economic positions were crafted to seek out Bernie supporters. IMHO, Clinton's primary goals weren't to win over independents but to drive turnout from her base. If Clinton becomes president she will do so as a Rockefeller Republican. She'll support TPP and NAFTA. IF she ultimately makes businesses competitive by reducing the corporate tax rates to at least mirror what they are in Europe - then IMHO she will go down as a solid president. In the end, it's going to be all about the economy. We will do best if we can maintain good trade relations and make the tax code attractive for businesses to stay in the U.S. and bring earnings made abroad back to the U.S.

Sounds pretty much like Bill Clinton, 1993-2001. If we get that out of Hillary, I'll be happy. I'm just not at all certain that we will. One, she was always well to the left of Bill, and not as good with compromises he was. Two, Bill's views, at least for public consumption, have shifted pretty hard left from who he was in the white house. This may be just to keep Hillary in relatively good graces with lefty Obama, or it may be some kind of permanent shift, we'll have to wait and see.

Quote:She's fellating Obama and his policies because she has to. If she wants the turnout, she has no choice. She's no friend of Obama nor Sanders. She does not believe in either of these clowns policies over all. The only major issue that she would try to maintain from Obama is the healthcare program. Yes, it's huge. However, if she makes the right changes then it's quite possible that things could improve with healthcare. Ideally, it would be best if the clock can be turned back and the concept of health insurance - especially gov't health insurance - never came into existence. It's the biggest factor - by a significant margin - for why health costs are out of control today. Honestly, I don't see how we can ever go back to the days where gov't money is not entrenched in the healthcare system due to the sheer amount of work that would have to be undertaken to untangle the mess.

Bismarck. Provide truly universal care while getting the federal government pretty much out of the health care business.

Why do people say that HRC is to the left of Bill. Her record says the opposite.

(10-09-2016 08:28 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  55% approval rating.

LOL

(10-09-2016 09:25 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why do people say that HRC is to the left of Bill. Her record says the opposite.

No, it doesn't. She's in Wall Street's pocket, but otherwise pretty hard left.

Watch her flip on TPP. And she'll be flipping it to the Bernie supporters.

No socialism in her plan. Just a lot more crony capitalism.

(10-09-2016 08:28 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  55% approval rating.

There are lot of fools in America.

The Founding Fathers knew that.