Obama vs. Bush on the economy - which one is most deserving of a second term?

How does that explain how you would know whether Obama has any depth in economics?

Hell you didn't even know the difference between real and actual figures until I explained it to you a couple months ago.

 

So Obama should be reelected because he's better than Bush? Is that his new campaign slogan? Better than Bush!

 

I think even in isolation that would be a point. The nation gave Bush a second term, and when compared to where they stared, Obama has done much better, so arguably should get a second term as well.

But the other point is that Romney's economic and budget policies are essentially the same as Bush's. So it is not unreasonable to put Romney in the same category as Bush.

 

Yea, whatever. Sounds like a real inspirational message. I'm better than Bush. Wow. Makes me want to rush out the door and vote...

 

b.o.'s slogan should be "Not more than 3 times as bad as Bush!" It brushes with the truth but is still a lie so b.o. can be happy.

 

You've gotta be kidding me!

For anyone slightly interested, here is the thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/248558-gop-trying-sabotage-economy-hurt-obama-read-more-http-www-newstimes-com-8.html#post1061268094

It actually had a good deal of entertainment value as Iriemon inaccurately calculates imaginary GDP growth for future decades based on an equally imaginary baseline. He talks a good game, but that thread proved to me that he's a fraud and doesn't know what he's talking about. I kind of lost interest in him after this thread because I realized that his skills were limited to spin.

 

So you agree that it would be kind of stupid to vote for Bush over Obama.

The next question is, why would you vote for a guy whose policies are the same as Bush over Obama?

That would be like voting for the same policies and expecting a different result.

 

No, I'm not kidding at all. You didn't even know the difference between real and current dollars, as that thread shows. That's really pretty basic economics stuff.

Here's the post where you confused "actual" GDP with real GDP. http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...http-www-newstimes-com-10.html#post1061282458

Which is why I wondered what background you have to judge the depth of Obama in economics.

 

Based on your performance in that thread, you really aren't in any position to judge my background.

 

I'm not the one who didn't (or doesn't) understand basic economic concepts like real dollars, Lil Mike.

 

I think even in isolation that would be a point. The nation gave Bush a second term, and when compared to where they stared, Obama has done much better, so arguably should get a second term as well.

But the other point is that Romney's economic and budget policies are essentially the same as Bush's. So it is not unreasonable to put Romney in the same category as Bush.

 

Once again, I refer you to this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/248558-gop-trying-sabotage-economy-hurt-obama-read-more-http-www-newstimes-com-8.html#post1061268094

 

Exactly. Like this page, where you demonstrated your fundamental lack of knowledge of the difference between actual and real numbers.

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...bama-read-more-http-www-newstimes-com-11.html

 

Exactly. Like this page, where you demonstrated your fundamental lack of knowledge of the difference between actual and real numbers.

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...bama-read-more-http-www-newstimes-com-11.html