I'm interested in the metrics you think are better now than then. I think your usual allies will bail on you about this, Maxiep. You're all alone if you think Carter was worse than Bush.
Unlike others, I'll bother to answer your question. I can give you more figures and more detail, but I figured finding an article was easier for you to digest: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/ Also, why would I seek "allies" when stating my own opinion? I'm confident enough in them that I don't mind having a point of view different from others.
not that obama has been good, but to deny that bush and clinton before him piloted this ship into iceberg filled waters is ignorant at best
In case anyone wants to watch: [video=youtube;uzDhk3BHi6Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzDhk3BHi6Q[/video]
reason.com rocks. http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/05/denialist-democrats Denialist Democrats The party of government refuses to even entertain the possibility that we can no longer afford it ... In this idyllic landscape of Democratic magical thinking, there is no state and local budget crises, no unaffordable and underfunded defined-benefit public pension obligations, nothing at all standing in the way of "investing" in our public safety, except (in ex-Republican Stern's words) "right-wing extremists." Vallejo, California is not bankrupt because of public employee pensions, and the rest of the state is not following suit. It's a hell of a place, this Democrat-land. Wish I could live there. Last night's speeches were notable less for what they contained and more for what they did not: any engagement with the issue of having a debt load (of $16 trillion) that is now larger than GDP, of having a long-forecasted entitlement time bomb marching northward toward 100 percent of federal spending, of having underfunded obligations in the trillions of dollars promised by politicians addicted to handing out "free" benefits. ... What makes last night's fiscal denialism even more appalling was that many of the speakers themselves have had to fight tooth and nail with public sector unions over compensation and work rules. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel outraged police and fire unions by tackling pension reform and pointing out that "city government is not an employment agency." Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a former labor leader, has called teachers unions an "unwavering roadblock to reform." Newark Mayor Cory Booker has been there as well. Needless to say, such talk was absent from the podium last night. One of the great ironies of this convention already is that speaker after speaker denounces Republicans for being unable to tell the truth or get their facts straight. Meanwhile, one of the most important truths of modern governance—we are well and truly out of money—sits neglected in the corner. This might be a great way to rally the Democratic base, but it's thin gruel for the majority of Americans who think, correctly, that the nation's finances have spun out of control. (more at the link)
It's protocol that sitting Secretaries of State do not attend political conventions. Last I heard, Hillary Clinton was in East Timor.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/honey-boo-boo-ratings-bill-clinton-tlc-368469 'Honey Boo Boo' and Bill Clinton's DNC Speech Tie in Ratings After trumping individual cable and network coverage of the Republican National Convention in the key demographic, the TLC series takes its first hit and only ties the night's strongest news coverage (CNN) among adults 18-49.
wrong thread but man, i just watched the ryan and eastwood speeches...brutally awkward deliveries wtf, they are horrible at reading off the teleprompter
Yeah, I think thats one of the bigger reasons why Kerry lost and Romney isn't getting the vast support his party wants. you're showcasing someone who has loads of money and doesn't know what it's like to struggle. Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry.
