Response to Democrat “Sweet Sugarmama”

Earlier today, I tweeted this:

Which I later repeated for emphasis:

This evening, Democrat Senator Kay Hagan debated Republican challenger Thom Tillis, and Democrat “Sweet Sugarmama” replied to me with this tweet:

My response to that requires more than 140 characters, so I’m putting my response in this post. 

Let’s start with Sweet Sugarmama’s words, and then move on to the chart.

Sweet Sugarmama’s Twitter profile says:

I’m a news junkie,I love ALL people. I believe in GOD & I believe that we better try 2 do the best job of LOVIN&HELPIN each other.

I, too, love ALL people (Jesus taught me to), and I believe that Jesus Christ is LORD.

I believe in loving and helping each other, in the ways that the God teaches us through His Word.

Sweet Sugarmama’s Tweet reads:

@ITTRP @SenatorHagan She won the debate hands down! Chewed him up & spit his crazy ass out! NC is the new black!

I’m curious what Bible verse teaches Sweet Sugarmama to talk that way about other people. That doesn’t seem very “sweet”, loving or respectful of other people.

I suspect that “Sweet Sugarmama” thinks that Republicans are mean-spirited toward people, and Democrats are all about “LOVIN&HELPIN each other”, but here we see Sweet Sugarmama using words that are far from sweet. What is sweet or loving about, “Chewed him up & spit his crazy ass out”?

And what exactly does Sweet Sugarmama mean when she says, “NC is the new black”?

I seriously have no idea what that is supposed to mean…

But let’s move on to the chart Sweet Sugarmama posted in her tweet:

Sweet Sugarmama's Obama Praise

The chart above:

1) Starts with Jan 2009, but Democrats (including then-Senator Obama) had already held majority control for 2 years.  Jan 3, 2007 is a better starting point for “before and after” comparisons.

2) Doesn’t define what date represents “TODAY”

2) Doesn’t provide links to data sources

3) Doesn’t accurately report deficit as % GDP

4) Doesn’t accurately report GDP growth

5) Gets at best 3/5 of its “facts” correct… and 60% earns what grade? #FAIL

——–

This chart starts with January 2009… when Barack Obama was sworn in as President.

But when Barack Obama was sworn in as President on 1/20/2009, he had already been in the Majority Party for OVER TWO YEARS.

I think it is fair to give the majority of the credit and/or blame to the political party holding a majority (2+) of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

Why? Because in our Constitutional Republic, budgets, appropriations, and any other bills affecting the economy must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (unless a Presidential veto is overridden by 2/3 votes of both houses of Congress).

When did Democrats (including Obama) become the majority party in Washington, D.C.?

It wasn’t on January 20, 2009.

It was on January 3, 2007.

Yes, from 1/3/2007 – 1/20/2009,

Barack Obama was in the Majority party and

George W. Bush was in the Minority party.

And since Republicans had held majority control from 1/3/1995 – 1/3/2007, January 3, 2007 is a great starting point of comparison… you see what the incoming Democrat majority (which included Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, then-Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc.) inherited from the Republicans after 12 straight years of Republican majority control.

If Republican policies are really worse for the economy, and Democrat policies are really better for the economy, then things should be better now (after 7¾ straight years of Democrat majority control) than they were on 1/3/2007 (after 12 straight years of Republican majority control), right?  RIGHT?!?

1) Dow Jones 

[I updated this on 10/16/2014 to reflect numbers through 10/15/2014]

1/3/1995: 3,838.48

1/3/2007: 12,474.52 (up 221% in 12 years)

Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) 1995-01-03 to 2007-01-03 - Highlight Growth

10/15/2014: 16,141.74 (up 30% in 7 years, 9 months)

Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) 2007-01-03 to 2014-10-13 - Highlight Growth

Advantage: GOP

2) Unemployment

1/3/1995: 5.5%

1/3/2007: 4.4% (GOP reduced unemployment)

10/8/2014: 5.9%* (Democrats increased unemployment, and the true 11.1% unemployment rate can only be reported as 5.9% because of the unprecedented drop in Labor Force Participation Rate. If we had the same LFPR now that the Democrats inherited from the Republicans, the reported unemployment rate would indeed be 11.1%!)

Reagan vs. Obama, Labor Force Participation Rate, through Sep 2014

Advantage: GOP

3) GDP growth

Go to http://www.bea.gov//national/nipaweb/GetCSV.asp?GetWhat=SS_Data/Section1All_xls.xls&Section=2, then look at the second tab and compare Annual GDP growth.

Average Annual GDP growth during Republican Majorities 1995-2006: 3.3%

Average Annual GDP growth during Democrat Majorities 2007-2013: 1.1%

Advantage: GOP

4) Fiscal Year Deficits as % of GDP

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist01z2.xls

Average Fiscal Year Deficit as % of GDP:
Post World War II, 1947-1995: 1.8%
GOP Majority, 1996-2007: 0.8% (average deficits decreased 56% under GOP!)
DEM Majority, 2008-2014: 6.4% (average deficits increased 700% under DEMs!)

Advantage: GOP

5) Consumer Confidence

1/3/2007: ~110

10/8/2014: 86

Advantage: GOP

There’s a lot more data that I can show you to prove that 12 years of Republican majorities produced a much better economy than the last 7¾ years of Democrat majorities have.  Some of that data is available in this post were I talk about the following graph and more:

Employment-Population Ratio and Averages, January 1995 - Sep 2014

Are you willing to open your eyes, “Sweet Sugarmama”, and see things you’ve never been shown before?

Republican majorities spent ALL 144 months of their 12 years of majority control with EMPLOYMENT ≥ 62%.

Democrat majorities have spent the last 61 months of their majority control (talk about the last 5+ years of Obama) with EMPLOYMENT ≤ 59%.

Advantage: GOP

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Response to Democrat “Sweet Sugarmama”

  1. Thank for all the trouble you went through to prove my point regarding the extreme delusions of the stark raving madd republican party. I have received at 50 new followers and a lot of good material for my new book! I am passionate regarding the mean, nasty, low down, good for nothing republican conservative teaparty white people who blantenly lie on the president and then get mad when we cuss their ass out.

  2. Interesting words from someone who claims

    I’m a news junkie,I love ALL people. I believe in GOD & I believe that we better try 2 do the best job of LOVIN&HELPIN each other.

    I don’t see love in your comments (here and on Twitter).

    When I read your comment…

    I am passionate regarding the mean, nasty, low down, good for nothing republican conservative teaparty white people who blantenly [sic] lie on the president and then get mad when we cuss their ass out.

    I see your anger, hate, racism, etc.

    I see your PROJECTION.

    I see your accusing others of your own sins.

    Everything I have written in the post above is true and backed up with verifiable data sources.

    For example, when I said…

    If we had the same LFPR now that the Democrats inherited from the Republicans, the reported unemployment rate would indeed be 11.1%!

    here is the data to back that up…

    On 1/3/2007, @SenatorReid @NancyPelosi @BarackObama @JoeBiden @HillaryClinton took control of the House & Senate.

    When @TheDemocrats took majority control of Washington D.C.,
    Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) was 66.4%
    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

    Current population is 248,446K
    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU00000000

    If we had 66.4% LFPR now,
    workforce would be:
    248,446K * .664 = 164,968K

    Current Employed is 146,600K http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000

    Unemployed = Workforce – Employed
    Unemployment Rate = Unemployed / Workforce

    If we had 66.4% LFPR now,
    Unemployed would be:
    164,968K – 146,600K = 18,368K

    If we had 66.4% LFPR now,
    Unemployment Rate would be:
    18,368K / 164,968K = 0.1113 = 11.1%

    If we had the same LFPR now that @TheDemocrats inherited from @GOP,
    Unemployment is 11.1%, not 5.9%

    That is speaking the truth. And I do my best to speak the truth in love.

    that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head —Christ—

    Ephesians 4:14-15 New King James Version (NKJV)

  3. Miri says:

    Red Pill, it’s like trying to debate a rock. Some can’t handle the TRUTH. Perhaps they understand math and statistics only about as well as they are able to spell or write grammatically correct sentences. (You’d think the red squiggly line under the word would be a clue.) This lady will certainly need a good editor for the “new book.”

    Certainly I don’t feel any “love” in this characterization: “mean, nasty, low down, good for nothing republican conservative teaparty white people.” Hmm. Red Pill, are you “white”? How does anyone know what color you are, especially when your avatar is a mixed race (rather good looking) fellow? Does a person’s color relate to the validity of his argument, anyway?

    Did you see this story? http://nypost.com/2014/10/06/denver-census-staffer-brings-data-falsification-to-light/

    “A field supervisor in the Census Bureau’s Denver region has informed her organization’s higher-ups, the head of the Commerce Department and congressional investigators that she believes economic data collected by her office is being falsified. …

    I asked recently the Denver whistleblower her opinion on the surveys Census is providing. “When the question is asked about data quality, my answer would be simple, there is none,” she said.

    “I wouldn’t trust any data from the Census Bureau,” she added.

    Last Friday, for instance, Labor announced that a healthy 248,000 new jobs were created in September, when the unemployment rate dipped to 5.9 percent from 6.1 percent. …

    The 5.9 percent unemployment rate comes from the Household Survey that Labor hires Census to conduct. There are big concerns about the truthfulness of the jobless rate, especially since this is the last report before the November congressional elections.

    For instance, in September the rate fell to 5.9 percent mainly because 315,000 more people told Census they stopped looking for a job.

    In fact, about a third of the recent decline in the unemployment rate can be attributed to a decline in the so-called Labor Participation Rate, which is now at a 36-year low. Ninety-six million Americans no longer consider themselves in the labor force. …”

    36-year low!!! http://www.catholicjournal.us/wp-content/uploads/LFPR.jpg Quite a precipitous decline beginning around when the Democrats had complete control in 2007.

    The thing is: Of what use are ANY statistics that come out of the Obama administration? They supply all the “today” figures, conveniently for them. Remember, too, that one of the first things Obama did was to put the Census under control of the politically appointed Dept. of Labor, where it obviously does not belong.

  4. Miri,

    Does a person’s color relate to the validity of his argument, anyway?

    No, it doesn’t, and that is just one of the reasons why “Sweet Sugarmama” is a racist.

    If I were write, “mean, nasty, low down, good for nothing Democrat ‘progressive’ black people”, I would expect to be (rightfully) called a racist. Yet “Sweet Sugarmama” thinks it’s perfectly OK to judge and label people by their skin color.

    “Sweet Sugarmama” is the antithesis to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream:

    “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

    I judge people by the content of their character, and I find Sweet Sugarmama’s character lacking.

    Sweet Sugarmama judges people by what she assumes to be their skin color!

    Long-time readers of my blog know that I believe we are all one race… the Human race.

    Skin color has NO relevance to analysis of the data shown in my post above. Note well that the racist Sweet Sugarmama injected skin color into a discussion where it has no place. Racists see everything through the distorted lens of race.

    As to the fact that one of the first things Obama did was to put the Census under control of the politically appointed Dept. of Labor, he has politicized the Census surveys for his own political benefit in much the same way that he politicized the IRS for his own political benefit. In that regard, he is worse than Richard Nixon on steroids.

  5. Again, I think we are all one Human race, and I do not like referring to people by their skin color.

    It is comments like Sweet Sugarmama’s:

    mean, nasty, low down, good for nothing republican conservative teaparty white people

    which make posts like the following necessary:

    Blacks at Tea Parties
    Posted on April 8, 2010

    But, based on past experience, I suspect that Sweet Sugarmama probably thinks that the patriots shown in those videos are not “real” black people… perhaps she even calls them “Uncle Toms” or “Oreos” (“black on the outside, white on the inside”). I’ve heard a lot of that kind of racist talk, and it’s always disgusting.

  6. Since the Democrats took majority on 1/3/2007:
    Population: ↑ 18.3 M
    ==========================================================================
    Not in Labor Force: ↑ 15.2 M (83% of the population increase)
    Unemployed: ↑ 2.5 M (14% of the population increase)
    Employed: ↑ 0.6 M (3% of the population increase)

    Since the Democrats took majority on 1/3/2007, more than 25 times as many people became “Not in Labor Force” as became “Employed”,
    and more than 4 times as many people became “Unemployed” as became “Employed”.

  7. Data from White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB):
    FY receipts, outlays, and surplus/deficits in % GDP

    Republican Majorities: ↓ FY Deficit 68% in 3 years (FY04-07)
    Democrat Majorities: ↑ FY Deficit 791% in 2 years (FY07-09)

  8. Miri says:

    Your analysis of the woman’s character is spot on. Truth is truth.

    Of course, that’s something else progressives dispute. They believe that there’s no such thing as truth. That all is subjective, and so they can have their own “truth”. Actually, when you think about it, Obama has his own truth, as evidenced by his fictional “memoir” (what an oxymoron!), in which he makes up “characters” for his “life history”, as if he’s the hero of some novel.

    The people who have suffered, arguably, the most under Obama are blacks, going by the unemployment stats.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s