Quote:
Originally Posted by PoBoy321
Certainly there are other factors, but I am curious how you can continue to assert that Obama was an anti-growth President, despite presiding over one of the most consistent periods of growth in recent American history. Certainly, you must have access to some other metric or piece of evidence that I have not yet been able to find to back up what you have to say. I am confident that you will provide it soon, because otherwise, your baseless assertions in the absence of evidence and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would necessarily mean that you are simply lying for the purpose of promoting some kind of partisan agenda. And since I know that that can't possibly be true, I look forward to seeing you back up what you have to say.
This is pretty easy though. Sure Obama lead the recovery, but the recovery
could have been even better! All he had to do was lower taxes on the wealthy and middle class, cut regulation, cut spending on the poors, etc. The trick to this is this orthodoxy can never fail, it can only be failed. Obama recovered the economy without it? Could have been better. Caused economic collapse? That was something else. Shown to not have much of an impact like in Kansas and Wisconsin while doing a lot of harm to certain groups? It'll be coming soon and be better for everyone!