4 questions for Republicans

Posted on: November 2nd, 2010 by ecthompson md No Comments

Questions (from the Daily Kos):

  1. What was the average monthly private sector job growth in 2008, the final year of the Bush presidency, and what has it been so far in 2010?
  2. What was the Federal deficit for the last fiscal year of the Bush presidency, and what was it for the first full fiscal year of the Obama presidency?
  3. What was the stock market at on the last day of the Bush presidency? What is it at today?
  4. Which party's candidate for speaker will campaign this weekend with a Nazi reenactor who dressed up in a SS uniform?

Answers:

  1. In 2008, we lost an average of 317,250 private sector jobs per month. In 2010, we have gained an average of 95,888 private sector jobs per month. (Source) That's a difference of nearly five million jobs between Bush's last year in office and President Obama's second year.
  2. In FY2009, which began on September 1, 2008 and represents the Bush Administration's final budget, the budget deficit was $1.416 trillion. In FY2010, the first budget of the Obama Administration, the budget deficit was $1.291 trillion, a decline of $125 billion. (Source) Yes, that means President Obama has cut the deficit -- there's a long way to go, but we're in better shape now than we were under Bush and the GOP.
  3. On Bush's final day in office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 closed at 7,949, 1,440, and 805, respectively. Today, as of 10:15AM Pacific, they are at 11,108, 2,512, and 1,183. That means since President Obama took office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 have increased 40%, 74%, and 47%, respectively.
  4. The Republican Party, whose candidate for speaker, John Boehner, will campaign with Nazi re-enactor Rich Iott this weekend. If you need an explanation why this is offensive, you are a lost cause.
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Dr Thompson wrote: "My comments were just a reminder of the ground rules." oh I get it. It's because I referred to someone as a thespian. That's not a bad word. It means actor.

As for the Nazi portrayer; I guess Tom Cruise won't be welcome at any more Hollywood-liberal parties for his role in Valkyrie. For that matter, all of the dozens and dozens of other actors who've played Nazis are all unwelcome. What do Robert Duvall (Stalin), George C. Scott (Mussolini), Omar Sharif (Genghis Khan), Bruno Ganz (Hitler), and all of the other actors do? They are saddled with this stigma of portraying a bad guy, and being tainted forever, apparently.

I meant to say: "There will always be ups and downs...."

Thank you, again, Joe, for your spectacular comments. In broad terms, there is nothing in socialist/liberal policies that create strong economic growth. There will always been ups and downs, both small and large, but you can't ever find proof that higher taxes and government spending create greater wealth over the long haul; it just doesn't happen. As for "trickle-down" economics somehow being "bad." Tell me what's better for the economy: a billionaire buying a new mega-yacht or the government starting some new social program such as school breakfasts or midnight basketball? If you said the yacht, then you win the prize. How can it be bad for the economy when you consider all of the people who will make money from the billionaire buying a mega-yacht? Think of the craftsmen, tradesmen, suppliers, caterers, crew members, harbor staff, maintenance staff, and on and on, plus the sales taxes and licensing fees, and all of the other stuff that makes the yacht float. And then, when those people get paid, what do they do with that money? They go to the grocery store, or to the mall, or to the movies, or the restaurant, or whatever. How can anyone proclaim that "trickle-down" is something bad? That's exactly what we want. Further, the yacht manufacturer earns profits (God forbid, profits! Oh, the horror!). What does he do with those profits? They go to pay bonuses and commissions to the employees, and they reinvest some of the money to go about finding a new buyer for another boat, or invest in new technology, or whatever. That's the way capitalism works; seems to work wherever it is tried.

spectacular? I don't think so. it is nice to tell tales of yachts and planes and yard men but you and I are highly educated. We can analyze data. What does the data show? The data on Reaganomics/trickle-down economics is clear. The rich get richer. That's all. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/reaganomics/ http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html?_r=1 Now we can dress up Reaganomics and say that it "works for America." But the bottom line is it doesn't work for the middle class. It doesn't work for the lower class. It only works for the top one or 2% of Americans. These are the facts. Now if you'd like to argue that the top one or 2% of Americans deserve or a lion share of the money because they make the lion share of the money then that's a different argument. Be well. Thanks your comments.

The post WW2 era (1945-1970) was an anomaly where a factory worker in America could live well on one salary because the economies of most of the other industrialized countries (esp Europe) had been bombed to smithereens. We were the industrial engine of the planet. Those times aren't coming back. Now we have competition from all over the world. Unfortunately, American consumers are largely responsible for keeping that competition alive because we've been more than willing to pay for foreign goods and keep foreign workers employed instead of employing fellow Americans. Let's start with the big items -- how many foreign cars do you and your friends own? You want a simple solution to job creation in the US that costs ZERO government dollars? Buy American. If we want lots of manufacturing jobs in the US, it's easy to get them. Start buying American manufactured products and let foreign goods sit on the shelf. Make it loud and clear that unless it's Made in the USA that you ain't buying it.

It is tricky because if the item is assembled in the US but the material comes from another country is it made in the US? Some foreign cars are made in the US but with some foreign made parts. The Hyundia Sonata is made here. Plus there is no law stating that it can't have a made in the US tag on it even if it wasn't made here is there? It gets tricky we can only do our best and really look and decide. I don't look at the bottom price I try and pick the made in the US.

You know I guess people can change their local problems by voting.But some forget you are a small fish in a ''It really doesn't matter" ocean. I will be glad when this election is over and we can get back to the Viagra commercials.

Thanks for the post - I linked to it from Facebook with my comment that they should stop confusing me with the facts. I'm busy voting Republican.

you're a real riot. Did it ever occur to you to ask why Dr Thompson carefully cherry picked the years he is referencing? Probably not. A better comparison would be to compare the deficit all the years of the Bush presidency with the projected deficit for the Obama years. Let's recall that Bush started out behind the eight ball because he had the Clinton recession to deal with (remember that? the NASDAQ declined by 50% in just one year, the final 12 months of Clinton) and then he also had to deal with the recession following the attacks of 9/11. But what followed were years of strong economic growth and jobs. Not likely we'll see that with Obama. The Democratic damage to the economy is enormous. This Subprime Recession, (the result of Democratic policies to manipulate the mortgage market in order to buy votes), has affected the entire financial sector which fuels the rest of the economy. Or we could compare the Reagan years deficits with the projected Obama deficits. Remember Reagan started behind the eight ball also due to four disastrous Carter years that saw interest rates jump from 6% to over 20% in just four years, also double digit inflation. But Reagan had strong economic growth, stock market growth and job production. Dr Thompson wants to credit Obama with spurring recovery, but the truth is that the recession was waning BEFORE he took office. The first quarter of growth had already begun before he laid his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution that he's largely ignored. The official end of the recession (two consecutive quarters of growth) was in June 2009 before ANY of Obama's policies had taken effect. (Obama had been in office less than two quarters. It is a literal impossibility for him to have caused growth that had begun occurring before he got there). Just admit the truth, it'll set you free.

You are a true partison. Cherry pick - Bush's last year vs Obama's last year. The me first GOP, which you claim to not be a member of, manages to fool a lot of people. The damages started by Reagan (not Carter) in foolish trickle down has led to wider disparity between middle and upper classes. Deny that. I know you subscribe to the philosophy of maybe someday I'll be rich too. It affects a lot of people. They'd rather dream of what they will never have than face the reality of what the GOP does to them.

Gentlemen - I truly appreciate everyone coming to WTO. Everyone has their bias. Everyone. There is no need for name calling. I don't mind if we call actions stupid, bizarre or whatever but when the conversations switches from action to people I get uncomfortable. This is my call for civility. Those who can't live with my simple rule with find their comment(s) lost in the ether. Cool? Errington C. Thompson, MD Sent from my iPad

Not sure what you're taking exception to here, doc, unless you deleted something that I can't see.

It's the personal tone. I didn't like the "you're a riot" and I slanted my comments. Nothing was deleted - except by me - as I had considered name calling. I've liked this site for civility so no complaints from me. Although I must say one of my favorite debate lines starts with "Jane you ignorant slut".

I haven't deleted anything. My comments were just a reminder of the ground rules. I appreciate your patronage and your thoughts.

"You're a real riot" is an old Jackie Gleason line from the Honeymooners. It means (sarcastically) 'oh yeah you're funny'. There's nothing particularly mean spirited about it.

Dr Thompson wrote: "If you need an explanation why this is offensive, you are a lost cause." I guess I am a lost cause. Why is an amateur thespian considered unfit for participation in the political life of this country? We have professional actors and actresses that are very active in Democratic politics. Do you mean to tell me that if an actor such as Robin Williams was in a film and played the bad guy (a Nazi, for instance) instead of the good guy (an American soldier, for instance) that Robin Williams would suddenly become persona non grata at Democratic campaign functions? I don't believe it. You do understand that a re-enactor is simply an actor, don't you? Agreeing to play a part in a fictional re-enactment doesn't mean that you agree with your character's motivations and actions. You do understand what acting is all about, don't you? This is truly unbelivable. This is worse than the guy who was forced to resign when he used the word 'niggardly' because his hearers were ignorant of it's meaning. Please educate yourself as to what it means when someone is an ACTOR, and PLAYS a fictional part. Good grief.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] is Jon Stewart closing speech at his rally to Restore Sanity. (As I mentioned in my comments earlier today, on this blog, I will insist on a reasonable discussion. I’m happy to discuss [...]