Proof that liberal policies don't work...oh WAIT!!

Yes...our idiot conservitards focused, of course, on the drop during the first year of the Obama administration--and ignored the huge surge during the final seven years. Because if you're a lyin' Con, you have to distort statistics and cherry-pick data.

Serving corporations is bad for the economy. Serving the people is good for the economy.

DUHHHHH, conservitards.

You lied about the data.  How is that proof.  I posted a link of the real government data on GDP.

Bump !  

Worth repeating

You said that one bad year followed by seven good years during the Obama administration...oh, never mind. You live in an alternate reality.

Hey Charles Higgins, are you still here? Now I need you to admit that you misquoted me and you also need to explain to Boilerman that his entire argument is based on your idiot misquote as opposed to what I really wrote. I'm sure your admission is forthcoming. At least if you have any class at all.

I believe that his thinking isn't as self-distorted.as the Shortbus Trio--Millerscum, Boilerboob, and stupid Tommie-poo. If he makes an error, he admits it.

The Trio points at the one bad year at the beginning of Obama's tenure and ignore the seven good years that followed. Then they say, well, that bad year proves that liberal policies don't work (let's ignore the other seven years).

The Shortbus Trio are, aside from being really fucking stupid, hypocrites.

Charles Higgins, I see that you just posted recently. How about showing a little class?

I need you to admit that you misquoted me and you also need to explain to Boilerman that his entire argument is based on your idiot misquote as opposed to what I really wrote. 

If you don't happen to see this message, Charles, I'll just have to try again!

I read your initial broad claims half-heartedly ( like I do with most posts here..right or wrong). You made an umbrella coverage claim stating " every time a Republican took over from a Democrat, GDP growth fell". That wasn't true when Reagan took over from Carter. That was my point..period. I did make an erroneous textual entry  while  arguing against your point and used the specific words "GDP fell" as what you said. You didn't say that.. you stated "GDP growth fell". When Reagan followed Carter, that wasn't true from the real figures I've seen. That was my contention with your broad claim. Boilerman's arguments are his own and have nothing  to do with my point..his business.

You're wound up tighter than Dick's hatband over this issue....the above should clear up any insecurities you harbor about it. Your manipulative tendencies often outpace those of my mother-in - law. Now you can relax..maybe get a beer (or a glass of tea..whatever) and sit on a porch swing. No need to have a dreaded,  unknown vascular event over this. Hope you feel better..soon. 

Boiler's arguments aren't reasoned or rational and don't reflect on yours. But the issue here is whether MP is correct when he claims that historically, the economy has done worse during Republican than during Democratic administration. THAT CLAIM IS ACCURATE, regardless of data from one year of Ronny Raygun's administration.

The larger question is the extent to which a given administration's policies affect the US economy in the first place. Conservitards and liberals alike LOVE to shower praise or derision on the current President for how the economy is doing. But the reality is that a) the effect a given administration's policies have on the economy is very small, and b) that effect, according to several academic papers I've read, takes about five years to materialize.

So for better or worse, we're still in the Trump economy, albeit with two intervening heavily distorting factors: the Putin war and the pandemic. That's the sort of apolitical view you get when you use science, with is anathema to most folks here.

I didn't object to the general historical comparison regarding real GDP growth rates between R vs D administrations.The numbers/ facts are what they are and the D's generally outperformed  my evil R's even after consideration of the requisite time lags that often overlap/ conflate these econometric comparisons between cpposing administrations ..with the notable exception of Reagan vs Carter. That was my only point, and I even labeled my assertion as a cherry- picking exercise in my original comment. I errantly omitted the "growth rate" phrasing..and that pushed buttons on Mr P's manipulative ways and means machine. Scuse me, Mr. P...feel better until your next overreactive episode.

This entire historical GDP growth comparative scenario has balooned into a futile jawfest in here with no real bearing on the current situation confronting the populace regarding paying bills, buying food and fuel, purchasing any / all daily essentials, and/or funding trips to Disneyland or Vegas, for instance.  With certainty, I won't be charged with "no class or integrity" as he suggested...especially not in here even when I might make a textual entry error on occasion. So, with that now corrected, maybe we can all relax and watch some damned football. That's what I and my imperfect ass is focused on..

Cowboys 30 , Jets 17  ( just for imperfect entertainment purposes in defiance of the real game odds / spread)

Exciting, isn't it?