sailordeac
Well-known member
Obama's task is not all that difficult. He just needs to be reassuring and convince people that the last time was a fluke. Romney has to keep winning the debates decisively to win the election. We'll see what happens.
Obama's pitiful debate performance the game changer Romney needed?
- Thread starter BobStackFan4Life
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
WakeandBake
Well-known member
IMO it is ridiculous that Romney is even close. You people slobber all over Ronald Reagan as some kind of economic genius.
5 months into his first term unemployment was around 10%
He is reelected with an unemployment rate in the high 7%s
The debt as a percentage of GDP increased under Reagan by 15%
5 months into Obama's first term unemployment spikes at around 10%
He is running for reelection in the high 7%s
The debt as a percentage of GDP decreased under Obama by 5%
Personally, I think Presidents are merely stewards of economies, but since all you jackwagons think a president IS the economy, and therefore needs to be replaced by a guy who bullshits shareholders and restructures companies for a living (therefore making him some kind of financial genius and WFU MBA jerkoff material), I thought those stats were interesting.
The most interesting thing about the comparison is the number of levers Reagan had to pull compared to Obama. He had plenty of room to lower individual income tax rates, interest rates, plenty of room to add some debt and get some money moving.
Obama has virtually no levers: individual income tax rates are at all time lows. Interest rates - same. A mountain of debt. He borrows it anyway, and is chastised.
5 months into his first term unemployment was around 10%
He is reelected with an unemployment rate in the high 7%s
The debt as a percentage of GDP increased under Reagan by 15%
5 months into Obama's first term unemployment spikes at around 10%
He is running for reelection in the high 7%s
The debt as a percentage of GDP decreased under Obama by 5%
Personally, I think Presidents are merely stewards of economies, but since all you jackwagons think a president IS the economy, and therefore needs to be replaced by a guy who bullshits shareholders and restructures companies for a living (therefore making him some kind of financial genius and WFU MBA jerkoff material), I thought those stats were interesting.
The most interesting thing about the comparison is the number of levers Reagan had to pull compared to Obama. He had plenty of room to lower individual income tax rates, interest rates, plenty of room to add some debt and get some money moving.
Obama has virtually no levers: individual income tax rates are at all time lows. Interest rates - same. A mountain of debt. He borrows it anyway, and is chastised.
Last edited:
