Wrong. Demonstrable fact.
That's you parroting a provably false narrative.
Every president can (and usually do) hide behind that excuse.
Except for spending more than a trillion dollars to illegally take over and destroy the health care system, for starters.
If by "record" you mean the "record" worst recovery since the Great Depression, sure. LOL
By kicking job-creators while they were down with obscene levels of taxation and over-regulation (hint: the terrible economy was his fault, and it survived
despite his best efforts).
Hopefully you remember the direct role Obama played in TARP:
Obama gets first major win with TARP
"Inherited" that provably Democrat-created mess, yes.
All the evidence shows the opposite.
Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy
Irrelevant posturing.
The guy who just went on a hypothetical voyage about what "would" have happened if President Trump were in charge is against speaking in ways that are not purely factual? And that leads you to dismiss the hard numbers (i.e., not conjecture) being presented in the article?
Um...no. That's not how that works.
That's a lazy and invalid fallacy. The facts and arguments laid out in opinion pieces can be valid. Pointing out that it is an opinion piece refutes nothing.
Translation: If fewer than 100% of job-creators admit that confiscating less of their money gives them more money with which to create jobs, then it is not true that confiscating less of their money gives them more money with which to create jobs. It shouldn't
require anyone to acknowledge it. It's painfully obvious common sense.
I refer you to the last time you made me correct this fallacy.
Only to the misinformed.
Again, provably false. Repeating it won't make it true.
Bookmarks