Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Mitch McConnell: The GOP Fixed The Economy" video.

The best times in our country recently were when we had Reagan with a democrat congress, and Clinton with a republican congress. Now that republicans took control of congress either Obama has to work with others or nothing will get passed, in both cases that is good for the economy. Kyle stuck to just jobs. What about GDP growth? After a recession we should see a spike in GDP growth, we haven't until recently after the election. Jobs don't matter if little wealth is being created. Kyle talking about Obama cutting jobs, jobs were cut after temporary hire for the census, but government jobs are still at an all time high. The stock market improved because the Obama administration gave $85 billion a month to it, but still sluggish GDP growth, we were still behind. And Obamacare wasn't a republican plan. What Romney put in place in his state was created by a democrat congress, a state law, and different in a lot of ways from Obamacare. And Obamacare is beyond the individual mandate. The Individual mandate, which wasn't supported by all republicans, but clearly supported by most to all democrats, was put in place to counter the business mandate. Now we have both. The individual mandate is just on part of a complex law that we didn't even read before we passed it. It wasn't a republican laws.
2
***** When I got my degrees I also got a math minor. I would say I am pretty sound in math. Now what research do I need to do?
1
BramSLI1 There is a role for the federal government, it is deal with foreign affairs, enforce the constitution on the states, and deal with commerce between states. The states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government. It was a checks and balance system to where no one entity were to gain to much power. Too much government is just as bad as no government. Slavery is unconstitutional, a state can't create a system to one owns slaves because that violates the constitution and thus the federal government will put an end to it. You seem to always go to that example and I bring up how it is unconstitutional to begin with thus there is no worry. I am not supporting shifting all the power to the states, I am supporting a balance of powers and keeping them in check. Shifting all the powers to the states is just as bad as no government and just as bad as what you want, a centralized government.
1
Ylze Tyr http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth If you look at times when we had a recession we have seen a spike in GDP growth to catch us up, we didn't see that under Obama after this last recession, we have actually seen low GDP growth. A less than 4% growth is terrible.
1
Ylze Tyr I did read the link. I guess you didn't read what I wrote in how at every recession we have seen a spike in GDP growth to catch us up. It has been 7 years since the last recession and that is too long. And I doubt most economists agree that 2-3% growth is sustainable. Asking for limited growth is not good. Do you enjoy making things up?
1
Ylze Tyr Ideal, but we can have better and we have, just not under Obama. And as I said, we are still behind because we haven't seen a spike in GDP growth to catch us back up.
1
Ylze Tyr So better GDP growth is not better? Plus, I don't tend to trust your sources considering you have a history of cherry picking sources and picking bias ones. See, this is your problem. You're too stubborn and insecure to just admit when you're wrong. You lack the ability to take on new information that disagrees with your already held thoughts and ideas. You didn't know anything about GDP. You have done zero research on it. You cherry picked something that claimed that most economist feel that 2-3% is ideal growth. I have never heard of that and I have done a lot of research on GDP growth. I have heard that 2-3% is good, but higher is better. And after a recession we should see a spike in GDP growth to catch us up but under Obama we haven't. If you do actual research you will see that. I agree that not being able to admit when one is wrong is quite sad and pathetic. I feel you should be following your own advice because I can admit when I am wrong, and I have done research. As I said in an earlier comment, it is no wonder you fall for very shallow phrases from people like Warren such as "living wage" because it doesn't require you to think. I guess ignorance really is bliss.
1
Ylze Tyr The problem with your source is that it is written by people who don't list their credentials if any authors are listed at all. They are sources you just picked at random because it suites your way of thought. It doesn't make you think any different. You support Obama so much that you are willing to find any excuse to make his lackluster GDP growth look good and thus you pick a source written by some random guy that is a self proclaimed economic expert. As I told you before, I have never heard of an economist saying that 2-3% GDP growth was ideal, or supported such low growth. Funny part is that I have family members who studied economics before. Both of my siblings have their MBAs and my uncle has a PhD in economics and taught it at a university and they never once mentioned that when it came to GDP growth. But apparently Ryan Barnes, who doesn't even list his university or degree on his bio, is an expert. Both of those websites also didn't cite anything, no credible economists would ever take those sources seriously. I like how you talked about writing a school paper. When I work on my PhD and I write papers there I have to reference credible sources. I just recently sent my boss info on a particular protein we are looking at and the sources I sent him cited several peer reviewed articles and I sent him peer reviewed articles as well. If I were to cite a source that was written by some random guy who didn't list their credentials or the university they graduated from than I would be fired. Yes, I do cite sources, I cite credible sources.
1
Ylze Tyr I looked up the ideal gdp growth in google, I found 3 sources all written by people with missing credentials and nothing cited at all. I cited tradingeconmics which is a credible source in economic data. I showed how following recessions there was a spike in GDP growth, but not under Obama until recently, 7 years later. That spike catches us up, we are still behind. I guess I can cite some random source as well. I can have my friend create a website and post writing on it and cite nothing and than cite it here, it is similar to what you did.
1
Ylze Tyr I can't find a source that talks about GDP growth and the ideal rate besides around three by some random person who are not even economists. The reason is because economists don't talk about that. What they do talk about are economic cycles, you can find more on that. But ideal GDP growth isn't discussed which is why I never heard about it until now, and the sources I am hearing it from are very poor. You have a problem, a serious one. You have this mindset and you will trust any source that fits your mindset. You trust Warren on economic policies when she taught law for her career. You trust Obama on economic issues when he taught law. These are people who for a living taught people to talk and well in a persuasive manner. Doesn't have to be correct but persuasive to get ignorant people, like yourself, to go to their side. They have seemed to sucker you in well.
1
Ylze Tyr I did prove the site isn't credible because the author doesn't even list his university on his bio or his degree.
1