Posted on 12/15/2015 8:12:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
At the Democratic debate this coming weekend, expect to hear Hillary Clinton claim that the economy does better when Democrats control the White House. The claim is a staple of campaign appearances by the former secretary of state. She uttered a version of it recently in Boston, where she said, "I know my Republican friends hate me to say this, but this is a fact. Our economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House."
She said essentially the same thing last month at Memphis, Tennessee: "I know that my Republican friends don't like me to say this, but the economy does better with a Democratic President in the White House." Here she is on October 30 in Atlanta, Ga.: "I'm proud that when Democrats are in the White House Americans do better. They do better economically."
Given Mrs. Clinton's assertiveness on the point -- "This is a fact" -- you might expect that the claim would be examined by the fact-checkers that some of the newspapers have deployed to scrutinize the presidential campaigns. Alas, at the moment the New York Times online interactive campaign fact-check feature includes ten statements by Donald Trump, but only two by Mrs. Clinton, neither of which is her claim about the economy's performance with Democrats in the White House.
Politifact, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning operation of the Tampa Bay Times, did take a look at Mrs. Clinton's claim that the stock market does better with Democrats in the White House and rated it "mostly true." That analysis seems a bit charitable to me. While Mrs. Clinton's claim may not be in the "five Pinocchio" or "liar, liar, pants on fire" categories that get the fact-checkers and their fans worked up in a lather, at best it's highly misleading.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Go figure.
Listening to a Democrat candidate tortuously explaining economics is like listening to a 2 year old child explain where babies come from.
She keeps saying that Republicans screw things up and then expect Democrats to come in and fix them....
when THE EXACT OPPOSITE is true.
BS! Democrats reap the rewards of a Republican presidency.
The obama economy is way better than the Reagan economy. Sure.
Hussein and Jimmah are perfect examples when juxtaposed with, say, Reagan and Coolidge.
Here’s the proof:
Hillary and all the people she associates with are doing very well under this democrat president.
In fact, she doesn’t know anyone at all who has to postpone buying the kids shoes that fit because their full time job was converted to part time when Obamacare became law.
Did you ever read Keynes? Your comparison applies.
“The obama economy is way better than the Reagan economy. Sure.”
Until an Obama lackey cooks the unemployment books......by 6 to 1.
Ummm, she’s an untrustworthy liar... a liar we can trust to lie... or worthy of her horrible reputation... or something like that...
Nixon was dealt probably the toughest hand of any post-WWII president. He inherited race riots, burning cities, Vietnam, and the emergent structural deficit. Clinton was the luckiest of recent presidents: he inherited a young and vigorous recovery, the end of the Cold War, $12 oil in the wake of the First Gulf War, and the internet revolution -- none of which he had a hand in creating.
Marking the calendar on inauguration day and attributing everything that happens for the next four or eight years to the incoming president is idiot's work, which is why journalists do it. Budget, tax, and regulatory initiatives will generally take a year or more to enact and even longer before they begin to take effect. Even if one were intent on playing stupid calendar games, I would lag the analysis by at least a year, and maybe two.
And that's without even considering Congress. Yes, the Clinton years are fondly remembered: Reagan drove the Cold War to a successful conclusion; Bush 41 presided over the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the First Gulf War, the Gingrich-Armey Republicans balanced the budget and reformed welfare, and private industry created the internet productivity miracle. To the extent Clinton engaged on any of these questions at all, he was on the wrong side. Mainly, he was a lucky freerider.
Her husband was the beneficiary of years of long, hard work begun by Reagan in 1981.
Under any other Democrat the economy has been crap.
Detroit.
Can’t wait for the MSM moderators to grill her on some of her obvious falsehoods. /s
How many times can they ask her favorite color, etc.?
My late mother in law swore she and her husband always did better when a democrat was in office. The truth is they were younger before Reagan came in and her husband drank less when Carter was in. He couldn’t stand it when a republican took over.
“Did you ever read Keynes?”
I read the Cliff notes. They were incomprehensible too. So now I read Krugman. Much neater and cleaner because he creates his own set of facts to prove that government spending on Mars has led to GDP growth similar to China’s and full employment of green people.
Keynes makes no sense just in the English. He states a theme and then rambles with run-on sentences that may or may not relate to the theme of the paragraph. Those for whom Keynes Theory of Money &c is the Economic Bible take only his conclusions and ignore his arguments because the arguments are nonsense and do not support or some dont even relate to his conclusions. It is if his paragraphs have a theme and a conclusion with random phrases between.
Anyone subscribing to her line of crap is stuck on stupid.
All you have to do is pay someone to dig holes and fill them back in, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.