just thought this place was getting too quiet....

[IGotNoTiming]

According to Forbes.....

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/06/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/

[SoonerorLater]

According to Forbes.....

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/06/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/

Are we sure that article wasn't really written by 8th under an assumed name?

[olevetonahill]

Are we sure that article wasn't really written by 8th under an assumed name?

Im Positive KC dint write that, Too many correctly used words and shat.
he will prolly Copy and Paste that **** and Declare its FACTS tho

[yermom]

President Obama has managed to outperform Ronald Reagan in all of these areas, while at the same time, reducing the national debt. On the other hand, Reagan greatly expanded the debt, and still failed to achieve in eight years, what President Obama has achieved in only six.

ouch.

[olevetonahill]

ouch.

For real? You believe that? Hes Reduced the National Debt? Dont Bogart that Joint my friend LOL

[yermom]

that is probably an oversight. i think he means deficit

[olevetonahill]

that is probably an oversight. i think he means deficit

Heh. According to KC tho if they wrong on one thing they wrong on em all
Oh and its a chick that wrote that LOL

[Sooner8th]

Heh. According to KC tho if they wrong on one thing they wrong on em all
Oh and its a chick that wrote that LOL

A chick wrote it? Really? Adam Hartung is a chick? He wrote what she was pulling from and added the last bit in herself.

source - http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

[yermom]

it looks like it was Randa Morris's comment on the debt.

my understanding is that the deficit is currently shrinking, but people think it's not sustainable and in a few years it will explode. i'm not sure where that came from, critics, or the CBO

[rock on sooner]

Hmmmm, smaller government, lower unemployment, smaller deficit, getting
out of Iraq, soon, out of Afghanistan, Al-Queda decapitated, Al-Shabbab decapitated,
(just a guess here) ISIL soon to be, in spite of no strategy. All this after the
Tea Party and McConnell, along with Ms Bachmann, stating that Obama is a
One Term President and faced with the most do nothing Congress in memory.
Welp, I'm no jump on the band wagon kinda guy, BUT if Forbes, fer cryin out loud,
publishes a statement such as "better than Reagan"...certainly some food for thought,
jus sayin....

'K, flame on!!!!!:highly_amused:

[olevetonahill]

heh. Got to love you Lefties LOL
Ya know the old saying? Lefty Loosey? Yall about as Loose as a Goose LOL

[Sooner8th]

Hmmmm, smaller government, lower unemployment, smaller deficit, getting
out of Iraq, soon, out of Afghanistan, Al-Queda decapitated, Al-Shabbab decapitated,
(just a guess here) ISIL soon to be, in spite of no strategy. All this after the
Tea Party and McConnell, along with Ms Bachmann, stating that Obama is a
One Term President and faced with the most do nothing Congress in memory.
Welp, I'm no jump on the band wagon kinda guy, BUT if Forbes, fer cryin out loud,
publishes a statement such as "better than Reagan"...certainly some food for thought,
jus sayin....

'K, flame on!!!!!:highly_amused:

They will LOVE this!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

[hawaii 5-0]

I think it would be nice if the USA celebrated 9-11 this year by kicking some ISIS Azz.

Doesn't matter that they were responsible for 9-11 in the first place.

Just a reminder to consider the consequences before declaring jihad on the US of A.


5-0

[rock on sooner]

I think it would be nice if the USA celebrated 9-11 this year by kicking some ISIS Azz.

Doesn't matter that they were responsible for 9-11 in the first place.

Just a reminder to consider the consequences before declaring jihad on the US of A.


5-0

Along those lines, I hope that our folks are on their toes, got their eyes &
ears peeled at our embassies and consulates!

[Sooner8th]

So we are just going to change to subject to 9-11 and ISIS? No one is going to defend your lord and god RONALD REAGAN? You are going to sit back and admit that EVERYTHING I have said about the economy under obama and if you want better economic performance to vote democratic? Come on guys tell me again how cuttin' cg taxes raises revenues. Tell me again how obammy is killing America. Tell me again how we would be better off with mccain or romney.

Come on, why you hidin'?

[SoonerorLater]

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/author/randa/

Do as you wish but I don't think I'll be getting my economic information from Randa Morris. At first I thought her article was satire.

[okie52]

So we are just going to change to subject to 9-11 and ISIS? No one is going to defend your lord and god RONALD REAGAN? You are going to sit back and admit that EVERYTHING I have said about the economy under obama and if you want better economic performance to vote democratic? Come on guys tell me again how cuttin' cg taxes raises revenues. Tell me again how obammy is killing America. Tell me again how we would be better off with mccain or romney.

Come on, why you hidin'?

Who's hiding? Undeniable fact that cg revenues increased after the cg rates were lowered on 3 different occasions by 3 different presidents (Reagan, Clinton & W). But you've already been shown that time and time again. Now you can argue that it was due to the economy/market/other factors but it is an undeniable FACT THAT CG REVENUES INCREASED AFTER EVERY REDUCTION IN THE CG RATE. It's one thing to have your OPINION about why CG revenues increased, but quite another to deny historical facts that CG revenues did increase. And the top performing administration, by your link, was JFK/Johnson which cut the top marginal tax rate by 21%...how republican of them.

The original article also stated that Reagan was regarded as the "Greatest Modern Era Economic President"...why? Wasn't Clinton's economy better? Why didn't the author compare Obama's economy to Clinton's (you know, the guy that cut CG rates by almost 29%)?

And much of the credit for an improving US economy goes to....drum roll please...the oil and gas industry!!! Providing millions of jobs, low cost energy to drive the manufacturing industry while substantially reducing the trade deficit. And we already know how Obama was always an advocate for fossil fuels.


Oil and gas employment has been one of the few sources of job growth in a fallow labor market, with direct employment soaring 40 percent since 2007. According to a study by consulting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the shale revolution may add as much as one million manufacturing workers by 2025, due "to benefits from affordable energy and demand for products used to extract the gas."


Meanwhile, the Obama administration has quietly embraced natural gas production as a linchpin of its energy policy, while encouraging the manufacturing revival. Simultaneously, the federal government is planning to create two industrial hubs geared toward boosting high-tech manufacturing and replace jobs that were shipped overseas.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101452073#.

You're ready to thank the oil and gas industry, aren't you 8th?

[okie52]

Hmmmm, smaller government, lower unemployment, smaller deficit, getting
out of Iraq, soon, out of Afghanistan, Al-Queda decapitated, Al-Shabbab decapitated,
(just a guess here) ISIL soon to be, in spite of no strategy. All this after the
Tea Party and McConnell, along with Ms Bachmann, stating that Obama is a
One Term President and faced with the most do nothing Congress in memory.
Welp, I'm no jump on the band wagon kinda guy, BUT if Forbes, fer cryin out loud,
publishes a statement such as "better than Reagan"...certainly some food for thought,
jus sayin....

'K, flame on!!!!!:highly_amused:

Obama deserves credit for an improving economy although if you look at the author he has been pushing "dems are better" for quite some time. Doesn't make him wrong, just that it appears he has an agenda.

I'm glad to give Obama credit...certainly better than "I told you so" as the economy was going down the tubes. I don't always agree with Obama, but he deserves the credit since this happened under his watch. He has recognized, to some degree, that cheap and abundant energy has been a driving force in restoring the economy and, in particular, the manufacturing sector. Of course, it is hard for him to admit it given his initial 2008 campaign agenda, so he must do things "quietly". But, at least he is being less of an impediment to oil and gas production than when he entered office.

[dwarthog]

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/author/randa/

Do as you wish but I don't think I'll be getting my economic information from Randa Morris. At first I thought her article was satire.

C'mon, a community activist who seeks economic and environmental justice? What could possibly be of concern with that Bio? How many autobiographies has she written I wonder...

[okie52]

In 2013, the trade deficit declined by 11.4 percent. That reflected in part a boom in U.S. energy production that cut into America’s dependence on foreign oil, while boosting U.S. petroleum exports to a record high.

The nation’s trade balance in oil has continued to improve this year. The U.S. had a petroleum trade deficit of $119.8 billion in the first seven months of this year, down from $144.7 billion last year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-trade-gap-narrows-in-july/2014/09/04/56622ae6-3430-11e4-9f4d-24103cb8b742_story.html

[Bourbon St Sooner]

As a final note, President Obama has managed to outperform Ronald Reagan in all of these areas, while at the same time, reducing the national debt.

Huh? In what fairy tale world has our national debt been reduced under the Obama administration?

[Ton Loc]

C'mon, a community activist who seeks economic and environmental justice? What could possibly be of concern with that Bio? How many autobiographies has she written I wonder...

I'd be more concerned but the fact is that she added almost nothing and quoted the highlights from the Forbes article.

If anything, she's just lazy and threw a story together based on another story and put a fancy headline on it.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

C'mon, a community activist who seeks economic and environmental justice? What could possibly be of concern with that Bio? How many autobiographies has she written I wonder...

She seeks economic and environmental justice, so I'm sure she's not going to point out the 2 main drivers of this economy - 1) The fracking boom which has created tens of thousands of jobs and cheap energy driving manufacturing growth and 2) The Fed loose money policy which has driven greater income inequality. The inconvenient truths that the Obama supporters will ignore to support "thier guy."

[dwarthog]

I'd be more concerned but the fact is that she added almost nothing and quoted the highlights from the Forbes article.

If anything, she's just lazy and threw a story together based on another story and put a fancy headline on it.

Yep, there is a lot of that being done these days.

[dwarthog]

She seeks economic and environmental justice, so I'm sure she's not going to point out the 2 main drivers of this economy - 1) The fracking boom which has created tens of thousands of jobs and cheap energy driving manufacturing growth and 2) The Fed loose money policy which has driven greater income inequality. The inconvenient truths that the Obama supporters will ignore to support "thier guy."

She would had to have applied critical thinking to the whole issue instead of just going for a "See our guy is spectacular" fluff piece.

[olevetonahill]

it looks like it was Randa Morris's comment on the debt.

my understanding is that the deficit is currently shrinking, but people think it's not sustainable and in a few years it will explode. i'm not sure where that came from, critics, or the CBO

She was the author of the entire article

Author: Randa Morris Randa Morris has been a freelance writer for over ten years. She is an active political blogger and administrator for several social media activism groups.

[Sooner8th]

Who's hiding? Undeniable fact that cg revenues increased after the cg rates were lowered on 3 different occasions by 3 different presidents (Reagan, Clinton & W). But you've already been shown that time and time again. Now you can argue that it was due to the economy/market/other factors but it is an undeniable FACT THAT CG REVENUES INCREASED AFTER EVERY REDUCTION IN THE CG RATE. It's one thing to have your OPINION about why CG revenues increased, but quite another to deny historical facts that CG revenues did increase. And the top performing administration, by your link, was JFK/Johnson which cut the top marginal tax rate by 21%...how republican of them.

The original article also stated that Reagan was regarded as the "Greatest Modern Era Economic President"...why? Wasn't Clinton's economy better? Why didn't the author compare Obama's economy to Clinton's (you know, the guy that cut CG rates by almost 29%)?

And much of the credit for an improving US economy goes to....drum roll please...the oil and gas industry!!! Providing millions of jobs, low cost energy to drive the manufacturing industry while substantially reducing the trade deficit. And we already know how Obama was always an advocate for fossil fuels.

You are just incapable of learning aren't you?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101452073#.

You're ready to thank the oil and gas industry, aren't you 8th?

It is true that is it is an "undeniable FACT THAT CG REVENUES INCREASED AFTER EVERY REDUCTION IN THE CG RATE".

It is true that is it an undeniable FACT THAT CG REVENUES WERE INCREASING BEFORE EACH AND EVERYONE OF THE REDUCTIONS IN THE CG TAX RATE!

It is true that is it an undeniable FACT THAT THE STOCK MARKET WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF SURGING IN EVERYONE OF THE REDUCTIONS IN THE CG TAX RATE!

You have a problem with cause and effect.

YOU contend that cuttin' the cg tax rates CAUSED the cg revenues to go up. They did not.

It is not my opinion, it is a fact. Learn to live with facts.

As for the considered to be the best economic president ever - who is widely considered by conservatives as the best economic president ever. It's by conservatives.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/adamhartung/files/2012/10/15a00d15151515c151515151515ef01515d15c15f151515a15 150c-1500wi15

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

LOW COST ENERGY? Natural gas is about the only one. Tell me how obama is killing the oil industry. Face facts and stop listening to rightwingnuts who want to only credit republicans with any economic growth.

[okie52]

It is true that is it is an "undeniable FACT THAT CG REVENUES INCREASED AFTER EVERY REDUCTION IN THE CG RATE".

It is true that is it an undeniable FACT THAT CG REVENUES WERE INCREASING BEFORE EACH AND EVERYONE OF THE REDUCTIONS IN THE CG TAX RATE!

It is true that is it an undeniable FACT THAT THE STOCK MARKET WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF SURGING IN EVERYONE OF THE REDUCTIONS IN THE CG TAX RATE!

You have a problem with cause and effect.

YOU contend that cuttin' the cg tax rates CAUSED the cg revenues to go up. They did not.

It is not my opinion, it is a fact. Learn to live with facts.

As for the considered to be the best economic president ever - who is widely considered by conservatives as the best economic president ever. It's by conservatives.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/adamhartung/files/2012/10/15a00d15151515c151515151515ef01515d15c15f151515a15 150c-1500wi15

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

LOW COST ENERGY? Natural gas is about the only one. Tell me how obama is killing the oil industry. Face facts and stop listening to rightwingnuts who want to only credit republicans with any economic growth.

Glad you finally admitted CG revenues went up after CG rates were reduced. That wasn't so hard was it 8th?

You forgot to mention that JFK/Johnson dropped the top rate by 21% and still had the most successful adminstration financially of all the recent presidents. Were they acting like repubs?

Natural Gas is the big one that drives American industry and manufacturing...surely you know that. But increased US Oil production has decreased the trade deficit, created jobs and increased US exports. Now you really can't deny that when even your "guy" has had to change his direction once he realized NG and oil production were helping drive the economy and reduce the trade deficit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2014/02/20/oil-gas-boom-2014-jobs-economic-growth-and-security/

Always with the right wing talking points while you regurgitate left wing dribble. Don't always be so defensive 8th...be man enough to admit when your guy had it wrong... like trying to put enormous taxes on energy at the height of an economic recession when, in fact, it was the low costs of NG coupled with Oil production that helped drive the economy out of the recession
(and reduced CO2).

[okie52]

As for the considered to be the best economic president ever - who is widely considered by conservatives as the best economic president ever. It's by conservatives.
.

The article states:


It’s Official: President Obama Is The Best Economic President In Modern Times

That would include Clinton, wouldn't it 8th?

[Sooner8th]

Glad you finally admitted CG revenues went up after CG rates were reduced. That wasn't so hard was it 8th?

You forgot to mention that JFK/Johnson dropped the top rate by 21% and still had the most successful adminstration financially of all the recent presidents. Were they acting like repubs?

Natural Gas is the big one that drives American industry and manufacturing...surely you know that. But increased US Oil production has decreased the trade deficit, created jobs and increased US exports. Now you really can't deny that when even your "guy" has had to change his direction once he realized NG and oil production were helping drive the economy and reduce the trade deficit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2014/02/20/oil-gas-boom-2014-jobs-economic-growth-and-security/

Always with the right wing talking points while you regurgitate left wing dribble. Don't always be so defensive 8th...be man enough to admit when your guy had it wrong... like trying to put enormous taxes on energy at the height of an economic recession when, in fact, it was the low costs of NG coupled with Oil production that helped drive the economy out of the recession
(and reduced CO2).

Cutting the cg tax rates was not the reason they went up. FACE FACTS. That's like saying I drove my car to the gas station and when I left it was filled up. Simply taking your car to the station is not the reason your car got filled up.

The tax cut was passed in 1964. GDP growth dropped from kennedy to johnson. It was 91% - do you know the difference between it being at 91% cutting it to ~70% and wanting to cut it from 39% to 25%. Two completely different things.

How did he change direction?

[okie52]

Cutting the cg tax rates was not the reason they went up. FACE FACTS. That's like saying I drove my car to the gas station and when I left it was filled up. Simply taking your car to the station is not the reason your car got filled up.

The tax cut was passed in 1964. GDP growth dropped from kennedy to johnson. It was 91% - do you know the difference between it being at 91% cutting it to ~70% and wanting to cut it from 39% to 25%. Two completely different things.

How did he change direction?

You haven't proven CG revenues didn't go up because the rates were reduced...only that it occurred during growth cycles in the market. Nobody disputed that. You also ignored that CG revenues increased at a greater rate than the market when Clinton cut them...but we've already been over that. And, of course, you totally ignored Obama's statement that he would raise CG rates even if it didn't increase revenues...out of "fairness". Is that in your left wing talking points?

[okie52]

The tax cut was passed in 1964. GDP growth dropped from kennedy to johnson. It was 91% - do you know the difference between it being at 91% cutting it to ~70% and wanting to cut it from 39% to 25%. Two completely different things.

How did he change direction?

The tax cuts happened under Johnson, they were proposed by Kennedy before he was assissinated. You're the one that wants to deal in absolutes. Cutting the top rate is always bad if it is proposed by a pub but when its a dem its okay. How did the top rates get to 91%? Did the pubs do that?

Do I need to drag out Obamas campaign rhetoric of 2008 and compare it with his new found (quiet) love of NG or taking credit for the rise in oil and gas production. Perhaps his ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic/Pacific to now allowing geophysical mapping of the Atlantic as a shift in direction. He certainly hasn't been pushing his pathetic huge taxes on NG and oil like he did in 2008-9. He is still an impediment but that is probably due to having to appease the enviro nazis in the dem party now once he recognized the economy was responding to oil and gas production and not his proposed "millions of green jobs" initial approach.

[Sooner8th]

You haven't proven CG revenues didn't go up because the rates were reduced...only that it occurred during growth cycles in the market. Nobody disputed that. You also ignored that CG revenues increased at a greater rate than the market when Clinton cut them...but we've already been over that. And, of course, you totally ignored Obama's statement that he would raise CG rates even if it didn't increase revenues...out of "fairness". Is that in your left wing talking points?

Jesus, you are that dense. I PROVED IT!!!!

Proponents of low capital gains tax rates like to argue that a surge in capital gains after 1978 and 1981 proves that capital gains tax cuts cause the well off to cash in far more unrealized gains, thereby mitigating or even eliminating the apparent revenue loss from a special low capital gains tax. To be sure, reported gains (before exclusion) did increase rapidly in the late seventies and early eighties. In nominal terms, they rose from $45 billion in 1977 to $80 billion in 1980 to $176 billion by 1985. Adjusted for the growth of the economy, this represents a 90% increase in reported gains from 1977 to 1985. Even if all the increase in capital gains realizations could somehow be attributed to the tax cuts, these figures would still indicate that the tax cuts lowered revenues, since the capital gains tax rate was cut about in half between 1977 and 1985. But much of the increase in reported gains simply reflected the stock market's recovery from the oil-price shocks of the seventies--and thus would have happened even absent the tax changes.

Moreover, a very large share of the increased capital gains in the first half of the eighties represented tax-shelter conversions of ordinary income into gains. This kind of tax-induced surge in reported gains actually means a pure revenue loss. If, as Michael Kinsley has noted, we cut taxes in half for people named "Newt," then we surely would find that Newts reported much more income on tax returns. Indeed, total taxes paid by people named Newt might even go up. But that would merely reflect millions of people changing their names to Newt to avoid taxes, not some magical supply-side effect on Newts' incentives to work, save and earn money. The same is true of tax breaks for income called "capital gains."

http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/part-2/part2-2.htm

[okie52]

Name calling again 8th? Try to stay on an even keel for a change. I still remember your "truce"...

Well I'm glad you are admitting that taxes have consequences including where investments are concerned. And, again, nobody ever said the market didn't affect CG revenues. And likewise, for all of those "Newts" out there, people will often seek avenues with the lowest tax consequences which is another reason investments were spurred in the market sector when CG rates are lower...even your article admits that.

[champions77]

Name calling again 8th? Try to stay on an even keel for a change. I still remember your "truce"...

Well I'm glad you are admitting that taxes have consequences including where investments are concerned. And, again, nobody ever said the market didn't affect CG revenues. And likewise, for all of those "Newts" out there, people will often seek avenues with the lowest tax consequences which is another reason investments were spurred in the market sector when CG rates are lower...even your article admits that.

Wow ole 8th seems like someone that maybe hasn't had some in a while. Maybe he's just frustrated with US.

[okie52]

Wow ole 8th seems like someone that maybe hasn't had some in a while. Maybe he's just frustrated with US.

8th hates lemmings...unless it's one from the left...

[champions77]

8th hates lemmings...unless it's one from the left...

The left hates intolerance, unless it's a conservative.

Some of the most persecuted class of people in the world are college students that are outspoken conservatives, attending large State Universities.

[IGotNoTiming]

Huh? In what fairy tale world has our national debt been reduced under the Obama administration?

Bourbon, that is a great talking point...and you are correct. As the starter of this thread, it was not my attempt to vault him as being perfect. He certainly is not. I am a democrat, but as a democrat I cannot defend this issue. Varying sites list his deficit spending somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.7 trillion dollars! As of now, I believe spending is at or around 104% of GDP.

This very scary. While I applaud Mr Obama's attempt to overhaul the sick care industry- I am weary of what the long term costs are going to be. Something had to be tried and only time will tell.

The burden of this reckless spending is shared by every president since and including Ronald Reagan. Anybody who argues otherwise is a damn fool.

I am worried about my kids' future. I am worried that those who are in power, bethey blue or red do not operate with the goal of making it better for the next generation. This congress is the worst I can remember. Frankly I believe they love the devision they have created in this country. By keeping the masses occupied by drawing lines in the sand. They just go about their business of backdoor handshakes and operate with only their own personel wealth as their reason for being there.

[Sooner8th]

Name calling again 8th? Try to stay on an even keel for a change. I still remember your "truce"...

Well I'm glad you are admitting that taxes have consequences including where investments are concerned. And, again, nobody ever said the market didn't affect CG revenues. And likewise, for all of those "Newts" out there, people will often seek avenues with the lowest tax consequences which is another reason investments were spurred in the market sector when CG rates are lower...even your article admits that.

Let me correct my pervious statement -

It is true that is it is an "undeniable FACT THAT CG REVENUES INCREASED AFTER EVERY REDUCTION IN THE CG RATE - TEMPORARILY. In all cases the revenues went down after a couple of years to levels LOWER than pre tax cut levels.

Reread the two paragraphs and see what they say about the cg tax cuts and how it effected investments. It was NEGATIVE!

And, again, nobody ever said the market didn't affect CG revenues. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth now. You keep saying cg revenues went up after cg tax cuts, that cg tax cuts CAUSED the increase in revenues. Like I said reread it, the part about Newt's point is that tax-shelter conversions of ordinary income into gains to lower their taxes from ordinary income to cg income thereby lowering overall tax revenues.

If you would read the article you will find that it says it lead to overbuilding of office space leading to the savings and load crisis.

[FaninAma]

Whoever wrote the initial article is obviously having acid trip flash backs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/02/economically-could-obama-be-americas-worst-president/

[Sooner8th]

Whoever wrote the initial article is obviously having acid trip flash backs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/02/economically-could-obama-be-americas-worst-president/

Let's see they guy that wrote your article -

Peter Ferrara

His senior law school thesis evolved into the debut hardcover publication by the libertarian Cato Institute in 1980, served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan, a Heritage Foundation analyst, founded the Virginia chapter of Club for Growth and directed the International Center for Law and Economics. Took money from erstwhile lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write op-ed pieces favorable to Abramoff clients while not disclosing which pieces he was paid to write.

Right wing partisan hack.

The initial article was written by -

Adam Hartung

Hartung was born in Watchhorn, Oklahoma. Wichita State University B.B.A. and an MBA with Distinction at Harvard Business School (1982). Began his career as an entrepreneur, selling the first general-purpose computing platform to use the 8080 microprocessor when he was an undergraduate. Currently Managing Partner of Spark Partners, a strategy and transformation consultancy, previously, he spent eight years as a Partner in the consulting arm of Computer Sciences Corporation has been a strategist with the Boston Consulting Group, and an executive with PepsiCo and DuPont in the areas of strategic planning and business development.

HUM - rightwingnut lawyer who does not seem to have ever had a private sector job or a Harvard MBA who is been in private sector all his career. Suddenly having been in the private sector is not important.

[dwarthog]

Cool, so graduating from Harvard Law school isn't worthy of putting on one's resume.

Makes sense now.

[Sooner8th]

Cool, so graduating from Harvard Law school isn't worthy of putting on one's resume.

Makes sense now.

No private sector - makes sense now.

[dwarthog]

No private sector - makes sense now.

Obama, make sense now?

[dwarthog]

While you were selectively scrubbing Peter Ferrara's resume to fit your spin, you left out this part.


Ferrara grew up in Phoenix, Arizona and graduated in 1976 from Harvard College with an A.B. in economics magna cum laude and from Harvard Law School in 1979 cum laude

[Sooner8th]

While you were selectively scrubbing Peter Ferrara's resume to fit your spin, you left out this part.


Ferrara grew up in Phoenix, Arizona and graduated in 1976 from Harvard College with an A.B. in economics magna cum laude and from Harvard Law School in 1979 cum laude

My guy Harvard MBA, you left out worked in reagan white house - to fit your spin.

Come on face facts, this guy has had a government or partisan rightwing paycheck his whole career, the other guy has been in private practice.

[FaninAma]

Let's see they guy that wrote your article -

Peter Ferrara

His senior law school thesis evolved into the debut hardcover publication by the libertarian Cato Institute in 1980, served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan, a Heritage Foundation analyst, founded the Virginia chapter of Club for Growth and directed the International Center for Law and Economics. Took money from erstwhile lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write op-ed pieces favorable to Abramoff clients while not disclosing which pieces he was paid to write.

Right wing partisan hack.

The initial article was written by -

Adam Hartung

Hartung was born in Watchhorn, Oklahoma. Wichita State University B.B.A. and an MBA with Distinction at Harvard Business School (1982). Began his career as an entrepreneur, selling the first general-purpose computing platform to use the 8080 microprocessor when he was an undergraduate. Currently Managing Partner of Spark Partners, a strategy and transformation consultancy, previously, he spent eight years as a Partner in the consulting arm of Computer Sciences Corporation has been a strategist with the Boston Consulting Group, and an executive with PepsiCo and DuPont in the areas of strategic planning and business development.

HUM - rightwingnut lawyer who does not seem to have ever had a private sector job or a Harvard MBA who is been in private sector all his career. Suddenly having been in the private sector is not important.
I knew exactly what your reply would be.......discredit the author. You do realize Hartung was simply regurgitating information from Bob Deitrick, CEO of Pilaris Financial Management( a hedge fund by the way)? Surely you did.

Here is a review of Deitrick's level of analysis he used in a book about the economy under various presidents:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/464639239

[FaninAma]

Obama, make sense now?
LOL, he walked into that one.

[Sooner8th]

I knew exactly what your reply would be.......discredit the author. You do realize Hartung was simply regurgitating information from Bob Deitrick, CEO of Pilaris Financial Management( a hedge fund by the way)? Surely you did.

Here is a review of Deitrick's level of analysis he used in a book about the economy under various presidents:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/464639239

Who is discrediting the author? I simply pointed out that he has never had a private sector job. The same standard you applied to Barack Obama, but in his case Obama did work in the private sector and this guy didn't. I also pointed out that this guy worked in the reagan administration and is a righwingnut partisan hack.

Then you post a review of the book that two authors down used? WOW what a reach. Deitrick was simply stating what rightwingnuts have been stating - reagans some kind of economic god who all other presidents could never measure up to.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Who is discrediting the author? I simply pointed out that he has never had a private sector job. The same standard you applied to Barack Obama, but in his case Obama did work in the private sector and this guy didn't. I also pointed out that this guy worked in the reagan administration and is a righwingnut partisan hack.

Then you post a review of the book that two authors down used? WOW what a reach. Deitrick was simply stating what rightwingnuts have been stating - reagans some kind of economic god who all other presidents could never measure up to.

Why are all your comments my guy/your guy? You still haven't answered my question about the Obama administration's "policies" that led to this rip-roaring economy. I assume your a supporter of fracking?

[Sooner8th]

Why are all your comments my guy/your guy? You still haven't answered my question about the Obama administration's "policies" that led to this rip-roaring economy. I assume your a supporter of fracking?

my guy/your guy - try to follow, it's pretty self evident.

Because I have answered it before. Telling you guys anything positive about obama goes in one ear and right out the other.

With your fracking question I am assuming you want to credit all of the economic recovery on fracking and energy.

[FaninAma]

Who is discrediting the author?

You aren't?


Right wing partisan hack.

So is "right wing partisan hack" a postive term in your pink sky world?

Again, the information supposedly supporting Obama's economic prowess did not come from "your guy" Hartung. It came from Robert Deitrick. I supplied the review of Deitrick's book as support that he is not a neutral observer of political history. Apparently he isn't very good with grammar, either.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

my guy/your guy - try to follow, it's pretty self evident.

Because I have answered it before. Telling you guys anything positive about obama goes in one ear and right out the other.

With your fracking question I am assuming you want to credit all of the economic recovery on fracking and energy.

I haven't been around here much lately so humor me.

As for the fracking question, it's a simple question. Feel free to answer at your leisure.

[Sooner8th]

I haven't been around here much lately so humor me.

As for the fracking question, it's a simple question. Feel free to answer at your leisure.

Why do you want to know? What does it have to do with this thread?