Have you selected your Playlist yet?
[QUOTE=Paulie97;2831733]Tooms has also been presented with the failings of the one term wonder Jimmy Carter, the same which led to a landslide defeat in his re-election bid. No amount of singing, dancing, twisting himself in knots, or the easiest way out of all, ignore the facts and repeat the same lies over and over will make it all go away.[/QUOTE][B]Number of jobs created in the United States from 1933 to 2022, by sitting president(in millions)[/B]
[URL]https://www.statista.com/statistics/985577/number-jobs-created-sitting-president/[/URL]
Eisenhower lands DEAD LAST with only 4. 8 million jobs created over 8 years. Oh, along with 3 medium Repub Recessions in those Happy Days years.
By stark contrast, Carter lands in 4th Place with MORE THAN TWICE the number of jobs created under Eisenhower's stewardship in only 4 years. Along with only one piddling Recession that only saw one quarter of GDP Growth contraction of more than -1% while the quarter after that only saw a contraction of less than a single percent. And that one piddling Recession was artificially induced by the Fed in order to cool down an overheated economy that was creating way too many jobs for the number of applicants to take them. Which is the same reason the Fed is trying to artificially induce one today under Biden's stewardship.
BTW, there is no known record of the Fed having to do such a thing to cool down a Repub stewardship economy that was creating too many jobs. Ever. Just in their creating every Great Depression, Great Recession and Serial Recessions within one presidency of the past 100 years, whereupon the Fed had to react in a very, very different way, right? Gee, I guess that makes Repubs the champions of making sure their economic stewardship will never produce meaningful inflation. Oh boy. Or meaningful jobs creation and wage gains either. Congratulations.
[B]Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms[/B]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms[/URL]
Here again the Dem vs Repub pattern is unavoidable and inarguable. Yes, Obama's overall numbers were badly damaged by the fact that he took office just as George W. Bush's Reagonomics-style stewardship results were crashing in around our ears, wiping out millions of job over those first months of Obama's presidency before he and his Dem Congress' economic recovery legislation hit the streets, stopped that Great Repub Recession in its tracks and reversed it into a historic long term economic and jobs creation recovery.
However, as I assume you can plainly see, we've still got Carter soundly destroying Eisenhower in jobs creation and percentage of job gains either by term or if you combine both of Eisenhower's terms vs Carter's one term or reading them inside out or upside down or reverse or inverse, while singing, dancing, twisting or even if you throw in one of Tiny's E=MC2 equations for exponential gains per minute or any other way you want to look at it.
See, I wouldn't have to repeat these inarguable, irrefutable truths right there in the data and all historical records nearly so often if creative, pro-Repub revisionist historians here didn't continue to repeat falsehoods about what really happened and thereby encourage more crap Repub economic results to occur over and over again.
Now, the only question remaining is; Have you selected the Playlist for your singing, dancing and twisting performance tonight?
Remember President Hastert?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2832567]You don't have to believe in mystical magical cycles or witches' curses on Republicans any longer Tooms. I've shown you stronger correlations between Democratic control of the House and recessions. And Democratic presidents and American fatalities in wars.
What are the odds that the Democrats would control the House of Representatives for every recession after the great depression except two? One of those two exceptions was the mildest recession (only 0.3% decline from peak to trough) since we began keeping records. And one was preceded months earlier by 4 years of continuous Democratic Party rule in the House.
And what are the odds that 95% of the American fatalities in wars fought since the turn of the last century would have occurred under Democratic Presidents?
Well, like your belief that Republican Presidents screw up the economy worse than Democrats, that's all a load of crap. There's no cause and effect. For example, Trump couldn't have prevented the pandemic and the consequent recession and loss of jobs. Or at least that's what Anthony Fauci said on CNN last night. And Roosevelt just happened to be president when World War II broke out. Shit happens.
I actually believe over the last 30 years the best combination for the economy has been a Democratic President and Republican House, or, better yet, Democratic President and Republican House and Senate. That combination has actually cut spending as a % of GDP and resulted in smaller government. Smaller government means a larger private sector. And when you leave more money in the hands of the private sector, that is, in the hands of the people and businesses, the economy grows and we're all more prosperous. .[/QUOTE]Then I guess presidential elections don't matter to you regarding the economy, national security and wars since "shit happens" that presidents can neither avert, avoid, prevent or respond well or badly to.
Maybe you, Elvis, Caliguy and the others should demand Dear Leader run for Representative in whatever House distrct he retreats to and calls home during the indictments and trials. He would surely be elected by his fellow Repubs as Minority Leader or Majority Leader and Speaker of the House on the first vote on day one. If the latter, then he will again be Leader of the Free World and Steward of the Economic Agenda usually but apparently mistakenly reserved for whoever runs for and wins the presidency.
You know, like President Pelosi and President McQarthy.
That way he won't have to hide from another debate with Biden or encite another violent, cop-killing Insurrection on a future January 6.
No Per Capita concern for American fatalities?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2832847]These are the first words in our Constitution, Article I, Section 1:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Yes, the president does have the power to veto legislation, although Congress can override his veto.
Our founders did not want to recreate a European style monarchy in the United States of America, let alone some kind of command and control style economy directed by a single person.
A Speaker Pelosi or Speaker McCarthy works for and serves at the pleasure of members of her or his party who are members of the House of Representatives. The actual power is vested in the 435 voting representatives.
As I've stated repeatedly, Fed policy, population growth, innovation and technology, oil shocks, changes in productivity, a pandemic, what's happening outside the USA, Congress, and the business cycle have collectively affected GDP and jobs growth, much, much more than the Presidents. And policies and legislation which presidents helped implement often don't affect the economy until after they've left office.
Given that I said I would not vote for Trump for dogcatcher, you should assume I would also not vote for him as a representative in a house district.
[b]As to wars and national security, I'm not sure that either party has done a better job than the other.[/b] You can credit Reagan for helping end the cold war, and criticize LBJ and George W. Bush for getting us into stupid wars. You guys of course argue that every war pursued by a Democratic President is right and just, while those pursued by the Republicans are wrong and stupid. Which can become confusing when wars overlap presidencies. And which makes you look warlike and cavalier about the lives of our young men, given that (coincidentally in my view), Democratic presidents have presided over more wars and American fatalities.[/QUOTE]Yes, the list of wars fought by Americans are many more than most can even recall. Under both Parties. I will leave calculating the overall number of American fatalities under this or that POTUS to the noted Mathematicians:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States[/URL]
However, if we just look at the big wars with American involvement that resulted in notable numbers of American fatalities that most of us even know occurred it should at least be among the ones where someone in American leadership, either the President or the Speaker of the House and I'll go with it being the President on that, voluntarily committed us to by word, deed and / or treaty and not because we were provoked into it by a direct attack on our soil, our troops or by an official declaration of war against us.
So in order to at least compare Repub vs Dem Presidents on that issue, why be so cavalier about American War fatalities and omit that first really big one where a true comparison could begin, The American Civil War? Yeah, I'll put that one on the Repub President at the time. Started by Americans and nobody else on his watch, no argument about it.
Then there was Eisenhower's Vietnam War. He plunged us into that one voluntarily by word, deed and treaty. Sure enough. We were not required to take over for the French when they were defeated and retreated. There was no direct attack on our troops prior to Eisenhower choosing to do that.
George H. W. Bush's Gulf War. Again, not provoked by an attack on our soil or troops.
George W. Bush's War in Irag and Afghanistan. Again, neither of those nations attacked our soil or troops.
Well, that leaves WWI and the Korean War to the Dem presidents up to now. Although I think Truman probably should share a bit of that with Ulysses S. Grant. Yep, Grant. Look it up.
Now, noted Mathematician that you are, I always wondered why you never applied the most rudimentary factor to just about any calculation regarding what happens to some people within a population; the [I]Per Capita[/I] number rather than the raw number. Shouldn't we be less cavalier about American fatalities in those wars by at least considering the Per Capita number of Americans killed in them?
Oh, but then I realized going back to at least that first Repub President for the Dem vs Repub comparison, Lincoln and his American Civil War, that Per Capita thing would not be helpful to your cause.
Then I wondered why someone as adamant about deflecting responsibility from Presidents for just about anything negative, passing the buck to others, well especially Repub presidents since almost every really bad thing that has happened to America over the past several decades has happened on a Repub President's watch and extremely little positive, which as we all now know is a wild coincidence of course, why you didn't deflect and pass the buck for all those big war fatalities from the President's responsibility to that of the Generals? That would even apply to the provoked wars.
I mean, much like the Speaker of the House is to the President on economic results, shouldn't you be arguing that those American fatalities in war are the Generals' responsibility? Aren't they the ones who take the basic agenda and goal of the ineffectual and unnecessary President and "originate", "pen" and "control" the details and produce the results?
But then I remembered who the Party affiliation of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Force in Europe was during WWII and realized that would not serve your purposes either.
Oh, and the Party affiliation of the Supreme Union General during The American Civil War.
And the Party affiliation of the Commander of the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front during World War I.
And the Party affiliation of the USA General of the Army during the Korean War.
And the Party affiliation of the Commander of Military Assistance and Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the Vietnam War.
And, well, you get the idea I'm sure.
Ike's Vietnam War did not begin in August 1964 with the attack on our ships
There seems to be confusion and misunderstanding about the words "Escalate" and "Increase" as they pertain to Eisenhower's Vietnam War. I assure you that confusion has been going on since the 1960's. Please note; one cannot "Escalate" or 'Increase" military presence and involvement in a war that had not yet begun or wasn't ongoing. The typical year cited as the beginning of the Vietnam War and America's involvement in it militarily is 1955, not 1963 and not 1964.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution merely legally and officially authorized USA Forces to shoot back after the North Vietnamese had provoked an armed response with their multiple attacks on USA Navy Destroyers, as reported by USA Military commanders on the scene.
[B]U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War: the Gulf of Tonkin and Escalation, 1964[/B]
[URL]https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/gulf-of-tonkin[/URL]#text=On%20 August%207%2 see%201964%2 see%20 Congress, and%20 security%20 in%20 southeast%20 Asia.
[QUOTE]In early August 1964, two U.S. destroyers stationed in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam radioed that they had been fired upon by North Vietnamese forces. In response to these reported incidents, President Lyndon B. Johnson requested permission from the U.S. Congress to increase the U.S. military presence in Indochina. On August 7, 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing President Johnson to take any measures he believed were necessary to retaliate and to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. This resolution became the legal basis for the Johnson and Nixon Administrations prosecution of the Vietnam War.[/QUOTE]Of course, USA Forces would never have been in a position to be provoked into an escalation and increase in our presence by multiple attacks from the North Vietnamese or to shoot back had President Eisenhower not made it his mission as early as 1954 to commit the USA Fully, totally and unambiguously by word, deed and treaty to fighting North Vietnam on behalf of South Vietnam.
Sure enough, it turned out once we started shooting back the fatalities rose on both sides. On the other hand, no one knows how much more lopsided the USA Fatalities would have been by the end of it if LBJ and the USA Congress had not reacted or done anything at all in response to those reported multiple attacks on our troops. Would North Vietnam had said, "Well, that was interesting. Nevermind. Let's change the subject and do something else" or would they have been emboldened to engage in more and bigger attacks on our troops without them shooting back or retaliating?
As was typical then and now, Mainstream Media and even this site spent decades bending over backwards to keep beloved old WWII General Eisenhower's name out of it, despite him being the President who committed us to fighting that war in the first place, putting us in harms way for the North Vietnamese provocation, making it necessary to shoot back, retaliate and escalate our involvement and despite his apparent idiotic expectation that we would or could fight and win it for sake of Democracy by only being shot at but never shooting back.
Notice how even this site pretends as though Eisenhower's zealously guarded, super secret pseudonyms during his presidency were "the countries" and "The United States".
[QUOTE]After the end of the First Indochina War and the Viet Minh defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, [b]the countries meeting at the Geneva Conference[/b] divided Vietnam into northern and southern halves, ruled by separate regimes, and scheduled elections to reunite the country under a unified government. The communists seemed likely to win those elections, thanks mostly to their superior organization and greater appeal in the countryside. [b]The United States, however, was dedicated to containing the spread of communist regimes and, invoking the charter of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (1954)[/b], supported the South Vietnamese leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, when he refused to hold the elections. Diem held control of the South Vietnamese Government, but he could not halt the communist infiltration of the South. By 1959, the Viet Cong, South Vietnamese communist guerillas, and the Viet Minh, began a large scale insurgency in the South that marked the opening of the Second Indochina War.[/QUOTE]See, they had no qualms about naming names for these military commitments to the Vietnam War as long as it was Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon. But, strangely, they seem to think "the countries" and "The United States" were some disembodied entities without a first, middle and last name. Hey guys, they had one alright. It was Dwight David Eisenhower. They even had a nickname; Ike.
Wow. That Kevin McQarthy must be a brilliant Job Creator!
[B]Private sector adds 497,000 jobs in June, more than double expectations, ADP says.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/06/adp-jobs-report-private-sector-added-497000-workers-in-june.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]
[QUOTE]Private sector jobs surged by 497,000 in June, well ahead of the 267,000 gain in May and much better than the 220,000 estimate.
Leisure and hospitality led with 232,000 new hires, followed by construction with 97,000, and trade, transportation and utilities at 90,000.
The unexpected jump in payrolls comes despite more than a years worth of Federal Reserve interest rate increases.[/QUOTE]We used to attribute these kind of results to the economic stewardship stated, campaigned on, won on, proposed, promoted, fought for, negotiated, legislated, signed and passed by the President. Like Joe Biden has done over the past 2 1/2 years.
But now some folks are passionately and repeatedly arguing that these results are really due to the brilliant and heroic efforts by the Repub Squeaker of the Pink Tinkle House NOT to once again within those same years apply brilliant Repub economic stewardship to Crash Worldwide Economies and Wipe Out millions upon millions upon millions of jobs by defaulting on the debts largely produced due to and in response to previous typically horrific Repub economic stewardship.
Well, anyway, that would be the only notable accomplishment by this particular Pink Tinkle House that could possibly be related to the ongoing jobs creation and avoidance of even a medium size recession, much less a Great Recession.
Now, back to pro Repub MSM reminding us heading into an election year how much better most people think Repubs are at handling the economy than Dems.
Lololol.
