House Republicans Set to Unveil "The Pledge to America"

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

wow I was under the assumption that obamas job creation was well on its way to his stated goals..

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=USD

if im reading this correctly..2008 is when he took over..hmm

how many billion did he spend on hope and pocket change..

4 more years.

Yeah, I don't understand why he won't wave the super-special Magic Employment Wand that they keep under the desk in the oval office. Why won't he just wave the wand and make a bunch of jobs appear? What an idiot!

Anybody that knows anything about economics understands that the executive branch has complete control over how many jobs there are in the United States. Man, if only Bill Clinton or Dwight Eisenhower had taken over in 2009 instead of Obama, I bet the unemployment rate would be less than 3% by now!! Yippeee!!

The executive branch had nothing to do with all of the free trade agree...


er nvmd.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yeah, I don't understand why he won't wave the super-special Magic Employment Wand that they keep under the desk in the oval office. Why won't he just wave the wand and make a bunch of jobs appear? What an idiot!

Anybody that knows anything about economics understands that the executive branch has complete control over how many jobs there are in the United States. Man, if only Bill Clinton or Dwight Eisenhower had taken over in 2009 instead of Obama, I bet the unemployment rate would be less than 3% by now!! Yippeee!!

I cant believe my eyes. Your talking bad about Obama. If Clinton or Eisenhower was President I have no doubt unemployment would be alot lower. Im also sure this country would be in better shape economically.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I cant believe my eyes. Your talking bad about Obama. If Clinton or Eisenhower was President I have no doubt unemployment would be alot lower. Im also sure this country would be in better shape economically.

Umm...your post here is way off the mark. I wasn't "talking bad about Obama" in this post. I was being sarcastic, although I have frequently criticized the administration on other topics.

If you honestly believe that a different president taking over in 2009 would have had a significant effect on employment, you are even more clueless than I thought. Whether Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, Newt Gingrich, PG85, or J. M. Keynes had taken over in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be about the same.
Unemployment would probably be a tiny bit higher if an anti-stimulus president had taken office (although the budget defecit would obviously be smaller) but the statistical difference would almost certainly be marginal.
Executive decisions can have some effect on the national economy's long-term trajectory, but the idea that any single person can have a dramatic effect on the unemployment number in the span of a couple years is completely incorrect.