What Are The Republicans CURRENTLY Doing To Imrprove The Economy?

[Meister]

Review of Federal Regulations
H.Res. 72 - Passed by the House (391-28) on February 11, 2011

Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
H.R. 872 - Senate has taken no action to date

Energy Tax Prevention Act
H.R. 910 - Senate has taken no action to date

Disapproval of FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations
H.J.Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52

Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act
H.R. 2018 - Senate has taken no action to date

Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act
H.R. 1315 - Senate has taken no action to date

Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act
H.R. 2587 - Senate has taken no action to date

Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on The Nation
H.R. 2401 - Senate has taken no action to date

Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act
H.R. 2681 - Senate has taken no action to date

EPA Regulatory Relief Act
H.R. 2250 - Senate has taken no action to date

Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act
H.R. 2273 - Senate has taken no action to date

Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act
H.R. 3094 - Senate has taken no action to date

Regulatory Accountability Act
H.R. 3010 - Senate has taken no action to date

Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act
H.R. 527 - Senate has taken no action to date

REINS Act
H.R. 10 - Senate has taken no action to date

Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act
H.R. 1633 - Senate has taken no action to date

Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act
H.R. 4 - Signed into law by the President on April 14, 2011

3% Withholding Rule Repeal
H.R. 674 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
H.R. 3630 - Senate has taken no action to date

U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act
H.R. 3078 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act
H.R. 3079 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
H.R. 3080 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

Southeast Arizona Resource Utilization & Conservation Act
H.R. 1904 - Senate has taken no action to date

The America Invents Act
H.R. 1249 - Signed into law by the President on September 16, 2011

Veterans Opportunity to Work Act
H.R. 2433 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011

Small Company Capital Formation Act
H.R. 1070 - Senate has taken no action to date

Small Banks' Access to Capital Act
H.R. 1965 - Senate has taken no action to date

Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act
H.R. 2930 - Senate has taken no action to date

Access to Capital for Job Creators Act
H.R. 2940 - Senate has taken no action to date

Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act
H.R. 3012 - Senate has taken no action to date

Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act
H.R. 1230 - Senate has taken no action to date

Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act
H.R. 1229 - Senate has taken no action to date

Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act
H.R. 1231 - Senate has taken no action to date

Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011
H.R. 2021 - Senate has taken no action to date

North American-Made Energy Security Act
H.R. 1938 - Senate has taken no action to date

Budget for Fiscal Year 2012
H.Con.Res. 34 - Senate has not yet considered a budget of its own

marc, you seemed to have just been blind to this post....but, it wouldn't fit your mantra, would it? So typical coming from you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Opposing The Obama's agenda serves to improve the economy as said agenda only serves to weaken it.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

OK, so you're going to ignore Meister and MeBelle60's posts. An interesting debating tactic to be sure. I would still like to know why the economic onus doesn't fall to the party that runs most of the government but so be it. Your question should really be," Ok guys, how do we go around the biggest spending president of all time so we can extinguish Obamacare which has kept businesses and investors from spending money and hiring"? Yea, I know, you don't consider this a "legitimate" response and so be it. If you did consider my views "legitimate" I suspect you would just ignore this post anyway....sigh... where's the love?

 

[Pete7469]

OK, so you're going to ignore Meister and MeBelle60's posts. An interesting debating tactic to be sure. I would still like to know why the economic onus doesn't fall to the party that runs most of the government but so be it. Your question should really be," Ok guys, how do we go around the biggest spending president of all time so we can extinguish Obamacare which has kept businesses and investors from spending money and hiring"? Yea, I know, you don't consider this a "legitimate" response and so be it. If you did consider my views as legitimate I suspect you would just ignore this post anyway....sigh... where's the love?

If he actually took the fraction of a second to consider these arguements it would compromise his programming.

At least these points have been posted so that some people who are "liberal" because it's fashionable, but aren't genetically insipid like most bed wetters, might read them and escape the mindless existence that liberalism thrives on. A little critical thinking would seriously reduce the influence the left has on society.

 

[MarcATL]

OK, so you're going to ignore Meister and MeBelle60's posts. An interesting debating tactic to be sure. I would still like to know why the economic onus doesn't fall to the party that runs most of the government but so be it. Your question should really be," Ok guys, how do we go around the biggest spending president of all time so we can extinguish Obamacare which has kept businesses and investors from spending money and hiring"? Yea, I know, you don't consider this a "legitimate" response and so be it. If you did consider my views "legitimate" I suspect you would just ignore this post anyway....sigh... where's the love?

Neat trick.

You're starting from the false premise that Obama's policies make the economy weaker.

The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

But yet, everyone must start off with the false premise that you're pushing.

I mean....c'mon.

*SMH*

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

Funny how you say this, and then talk about someone else posting a false premise.

 

[MarcATL]

[
The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

Funny how you say this, and then talk about someone else posting a false premise.

Under Reagan, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Bush I, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Bush II, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Clinton, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Obama, has the economy gone up or down from the beginning of his term to date?

Starting to see a pattern here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, so you're going to ignore Meister and MeBelle60's posts. An interesting debating tactic to be sure. I would still like to know why the economic onus doesn't fall to the party that runs most of the government but so be it. Your question should really be," Ok guys, how do we go around the biggest spending president of all time so we can extinguish Obamacare which has kept businesses and investors from spending money and hiring"? Yea, I know, you don't consider this a "legitimate" response and so be it. If you did consider my views "legitimate" I suspect you would just ignore this post anyway....sigh... where's the love?

Neat trick.

You're starting from the false premise that Obama's policies make the economy weaker.

The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

But yet, everyone must start off with the false premise that you're pushing.

I mean....c'mon.

*SMH*

Actually, he is starting from the premise that the polices are bad. In order for it to be a false premise you have to provide actual real world examples of Keynesian economic polices being good for the economy. Until you can actually do that you are starting from the false premise that you get to decide truth.

 

[MarcATL]

OK, so you're going to ignore Meister and MeBelle60's posts. An interesting debating tactic to be sure. I would still like to know why the economic onus doesn't fall to the party that runs most of the government but so be it. Your question should really be," Ok guys, how do we go around the biggest spending president of all time so we can extinguish Obamacare which has kept businesses and investors from spending money and hiring"? Yea, I know, you don't consider this a "legitimate" response and so be it. If you did consider my views "legitimate" I suspect you would just ignore this post anyway....sigh... where's the love?

Neat trick.

You're starting from the false premise that Obama's policies make the economy weaker.

The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

But yet, everyone must start off with the false premise that you're pushing.

I mean....c'mon.

*SMH*

Actually, he is starting from the premise that the polices are bad. In order for it to be a false premise you have to provide actual real world examples of Keynesian economic polices being good for the economy. Until you can actually do that you are starting from the false premise that you get to decide truth.

When have Republican policies ever brought the economy out of disaster?

Ever in history.

List them please.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

Funny how you say this, and then talk about someone else posting a false premise.

Under Reagan, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

GDP
1-20-1980 $2915.3B
1-20-1989 $5581.7B
Answer: Up

Under Bush I, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

GDP
1-20-1989 $5581.7B
1-20-1993 $6493.6B
Answer: Up

Under Bush II, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

GDP
1-20-2001 $10129.8B
1-20-2009 $14081.7B
Answer: Up

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...i=1&910=X&911=0&903=5&904=1981&905=1990&906=Q
Table 1.1.5

You have been proven wrong.
Be a man - or, at least, act like one - and admit it.

 

[GHook93]

Any of them for that matter.

Well....???

Fighting Obama and the Dimocrats on passing regulations to make it WORSE! Too bad they couldn't stop Obamacare!

 

[Meister]

[
The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

Funny how you say this, and then talk about someone else posting a false premise.

Under Reagan, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Bush I, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Bush II, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Clinton, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Obama, has the economy gone up or down from the beginning of his term to date?

Starting to see a pattern here?

No...not when you look at the actual facts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

Since I have the data in front of me and find some amusement in exposing partisan bigots for what they are....

GDP
1-20-1953 $378.4B
1-20-1961 $528.0B
Ike: Increase

GDP
1-20-1969 $960.9B
1-20-1977 $1884.9B
Nixon/Ford: Increase

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...i=1&910=X&911=0&903=5&904=1952&905=1981&906=Q
Table 1.1.5

 

[M14 Shooter]

Funny how you say this, and then talk about someone else posting a false premise.

Under Reagan, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Bush I, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Bush II, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Clinton, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

Under Obama, has the economy gone up or down from the beginning of his term to date?

Starting to see a pattern here?

No...not when you look at the actual facts.

Looking forward to seeing his spin on being proven wrong.

 

[Spoonman]

Any of them for that matter.







Well....???

battling the obstructionist liberal democratic majority in the senate.

 

[MarcATL]

The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

Since I have the data in front of me and find some amusement in exposing partisan bigots for what they are....

GDP
1-20-1953 $378.4B
1-20-1961 $528.0B
Ike: Increase

GDP
1-20-1969 $960.9B
1-20-1977 $1884.9B
Nixon/Ford: Increase

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...i=1&910=X&911=0&903=5&904=1952&905=1981&906=Q
Table 1.1.5

None of that occurred under Bush I, II nor under Reagan, which were the ones I listed purporsefully.

Interesting...

 

[M14 Shooter]

The economy has ALWAYS grown under Democratic Presidents and policies and have ALWAYS gone down under Republican Presidents and policies, most recently with Reagan and Bush II.

Since I have the data in front of me and find some amusement in exposing partisan bigots for what they are....

GDP
1-20-1953 $378.4B
1-20-1961 $528.0B
Ike: Increase

GDP
1-20-1969 $960.9B
1-20-1977 $1884.9B
Nixon/Ford: Increase

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...i=1&910=X&911=0&903=5&904=1952&905=1981&906=Q
Table 1.1.5

None of that occurred under Bush I, II nor under Reagan, which were the ones I listed purporsefully.
Interesting...

Nowhere near as interesting as the fact that you ignored the post where I listed the GDP growth under Reagan/Bush/Bush...

Under Reagan, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

GDP
1-20-1980 $2915.3B
1-20-1989 $5581.7B
Answer: Up

Quote:
Under Bush I, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

GDP
1-20-1989 $5581.7B
1-20-1993 $6493.6B
Answer: Up

Quote:
Under Bush II, did the economy go up or down from the beginning to the end of his term?

GDP
1-20-2001 $10129.8B
1-20-2009 $14081.7B
Answer: Up

-You- said:

The economy has ALWAYS...gone down under Republican Presidents and policies

-I- have proven otherwise.

So, you either lied, or spoke from abject ignorance.
Either way, you're proven wrong.
All that remains now is for you to be honest enough to admit it.

 

[Mustang]

Nothing, because government can't fix it.

The only solution to this economy is to return to gold and silver, whilst erecting protective tariffs against foreign currencies and commodities.

What's next? The barter system?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing, because government can't fix it.
The only solution to this economy is to return to gold and silver, whilst erecting protective tariffs against foreign currencies and commodities.

What's next? The barter system?

Not too long from now, the only valid currency will be ammunition.

 

[Dot Com]

What Are The Republicans CURRENTLY Doing To Imrprove The Economy?

Thats easy they're sitting on their asses doing nothing and collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck for it.