Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Republicans have on average a worse ecomonic record, that I'm afraid is an economic fact.
So what you saying is that in cases when Democrats (or Labour) bankrupt the country and next administration takes over (which would have to be Republicans (Cons) in two party states like USA and UK) then suddenly it's all the other party's fault?
Things are pretty bad right now in UK but is it due to Conservative policies in the last 12 years or perhaps Liebor's?
Did it occur to you that different presidents had different challenges? Ronald Reagan had to deal with threat of USSR and he successfully solved that problem without WW3.
On the contrary Kennedy nearly started one by placing nukes in Turkey which forced USSR to deploy them in Cuba.
Now you are moving on from economics. Of course they faced different challenges, FDR was president during the worst war we have had, still didn't do too bad ecomnomically during his tenure.
Republicans have on average a worse ecomonic record, that I'm afraid is an economic fact. Please leave normative statements out of it.
You can see it's usually reduced under democrats. Regan Bush and Bush let it spiral out of control.
Did it occur to you that different presidents had different challenges? Ronald Reagan had to deal with threat of USSR and he successfully solved that problem without WW3.
On the contrary Kennedy nearly started one by placing nukes in Turkey which forced USSR to deploy them in Cuba.
I don't see debt figures in your stats - conviniently ignored perhaps?
Not ignored at all, I just thought the other figures were more compelling but as above you can see it's usually reduced under Democrats. Regan Bush and Bush let it spiral out of control.
You'd have it that the Repulicans are the most unlucky party in history of US politics while the Democrats were the most flukey.
I don't see debt figures in your stats - conviniently ignored perhaps?
"Growth" through debt like it happened under Bliar and Clinton is self-defeating - next administration will have to deal with the fallout and in a two party state like UK or USA that easily means same party can deal with tulip all the time because one party can be populist ****s who just want to be elected.
Stock market return 992% under democrats, FFS give me a fooking break!
Some of the tough policies take time to give results so often those who got elected AFTER those who enacted those policies take the credit - just like Bliar and Brown took credit for Major's work.
That classic CUK argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. From a factual persepctive the party in power cannot take credit for success BUT blame all failure during their tenure (which could be a period of 8 years) on others. You'd have it that the Repulicans are the most unlucky party in history of US politics while the Democrats were the most flukey. I don't buy that nor do many historians.
Some of the tough policies take time to give results so often those who got elected AFTER those who enacted those policies take the credit - just like Bliar and Brown took credit for Major's work.
So let me get this straight; Obama was elected because GW Bush was a useless inbred religious fundamentalist feckwhitted six fingered hick who left behind an economy in tatters, a war that nobody could win and a country with no friends except the Snot Goblin. Four years later, it turns out Obama is human and can't turn the abominable mess around in just a few years with a republican congress who'll block anything he tries to do, but he hasn't made things worse. So now it's time to elect a new useless inbred religious fundamentalist feckwhitted six fingered hick and turn the whole world fubar???
Bastards; find a tulip job, give the candidate the wrong tools and a bunch of halfwit colleagues, give the job to a black guy and then blame him and fire him.
Bush being incredibly tulip does not mean that Obama has not been tulip himself.
Apparently on his first day in job, the CIA always tell the incoming President the private toilet key is "in the corner of the Oval Office" just to watch confusion...
Leave a comment: