More good economic news

[Warhorse]

The Republicans will continue to discredit, discount, and dismiss the slightest mention of economic recovery/improvement until the election. They have been doing so for the past three + years so why stop now?

[Weinosker]

The Republicans will continue to discredit, discount, and dismiss the slightest mention of economic recovery/improvement until the election. They have been doing so for the past three + years so why stop now?

Could you point out where I've done that in this thread? In fact, I've recognized several metrics that show economic growth - there's no denying that the economy is growing. Once again, compared to other past recessions/depressions, we've recovered horribly and I think there are very specific reasons for that that point to democratic policies.

Do you deny that the growth has been slower than past recoveries? Are you OK with the fact that job growth has stagnated? That most of this year has shown signs of the economy sputtering and lurching forward instead of taking off...?

[ChitownHusker]

The Republicans will continue to discredit, discount, and dismiss the slightest mention of economic recovery/improvement until the election. They have been doing so for the past three + years so why stop now?

As Weino's posts demonstrate, this recovery has been flatter and weaker than any recovery from any other recession. If such a recovery had occurred on a Republican president's watch instead of a Democratic president's watch, democrats would be just as criticial. And rightly so.

[HuZkurZ]

The Republicans will continue to discredit, discount, and dismiss the slightest mention of economic recovery/improvement until the election. They have been doing so for the past three + years so why stop now?

Wahorse, are you happy with the pace of recovery?

[Weinosker]

Weino,

You gave it a good effort. But, if someone is bent on ruining a thread there isn't much you can do to save it.

I think this is a really interesting topic, so I'm not real worried about it.

I am disappointed that we didn't have more people weigh in - it would have been good to hear from Seattle or cactusboy on this topic.

[RedPhoenix]

I'm not gong to comment on your personal commentary.

I made no personal commentary. I answered and countered your post.

The LEI is good news, I'll grant you that... But, once again "slow, but steady" recovery. If we want the recovery to kick up a notch, we need to make a change in The White House.

Here's a great synopsis of economy under Obama from CNN: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/...omy/index.html

As I've been saying, recovery, but way tooooo slooooowww!! Time for Obama to gooooo!!!

I have no problem with you arguing that point. I've not argued that Obama should stay. I can see why some would want him to not be elected again and I also see why some would want him elected again.

While no one will believe this statement, I'm currently undecided as to who I will be voting for.

[RedPhoenix]

The Republicans will continue to discredit, discount, and dismiss the slightest mention of economic recovery/improvement until the election. They have been doing so for the past three + years so why stop now?

Actually weino and others have simply claimed it is slower than previous ones. Not that it isn't there.

[Weinosker]

I made no personal commentary. I answered and countered your post.



I have no problem with you arguing that point. I've not argued that Obama should stay. I can see why some would want him to not be elected again and I also see why some would want him elected again.

While no one will believe this statement, I'm currently undecided as to who I will be voting for.

I have no reason not to believe you. I'm curious what sort of things will you be looking at to make your decision?

[RedPhoenix]

I have no reason not to believe you. I'm curious what sort of things will you be looking at to make your decision?

How they run their campaigns. Who I believe more during the debates. For me it's a gut feeling of who I think can do a better job. As I said in previous elections, each candidate will be roughly 80% exactly the same once they take office.

[Warhorse]

As Weino's posts demonstrate, this recovery has been flatter and weaker than any recovery from any other recession. If such a recovery had occurred on a Republican president's watch instead of a Democratic president's watch, democrats would be just as criticial. And rightly so.

But would they (Democrats) have purposefully obstructed recovery just to regain political power?

[huskrthill]

But would they (Democrats) have purposefully obstructed recovery just to regain political power?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain this is a veiled accusation that Republicans have tried to obstruct an economic recovery. I'm wondering which specific bills Republicans have obstructed in the last couple of years, and how those bills would have led to a stronger recovery.

Anyway, to answer the question more directly, I think we've seen in the Missouri Senate race that Democrats are willing to do just about anything to get elected. Why else would they want Akin to remain in the race? To them, serious issues like rape, abortion, and race are just political tools. We've seen it before with their treatment of people such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. There's no reason to believe that they wouldn't block solutions designed to strengthen the economy if it gave them an opportunity to gain power.

Party over people.

[Pops]

As Weino's posts demonstrate, this recovery has been flatter and weaker than any recovery from any other recession. If such a recovery had occurred on a Republican president's watch instead of a Democratic president's watch, democrats would be just as criticial. And rightly so.

No we get to see a recession happen under the republicans watch

[ColoREDo]

No we get to see a recession happen under the republicans watch

Obama's fault.

[huskerator 5000]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain this is a veiled accusation that Republicans have tried to obstruct an economic recovery. I'm wondering which specific bills Republicans have obstructed in the last couple of years, and how those bills would have led to a stronger recovery.

There was the debt ceiling and government shutdown things, which did seem to hurt confidence and stunt the recovery.

[huskrthill]

There was the debt ceiling and government shutdown things, which did seem to hurt confidence and stunt the recovery.

Is it your belief that Republicans were the sole reason for that?

[huskerator 5000]

Is it your belief that Republicans were the sole reason for that?

I think the Tea Partiers were the main reason (though not the only one).

Just like with the Neo Cons and the govt. shutdown in the mid-90s, I think the Republicans drove a much harder bargain than usual because there was a democrat president to take the fall in the public eye. I don't think the Republicans were trying to hurt the recovery, just that they were willing to take greater risks with it in order to fight for their agenda.