Shays says Obama Administration suffocating GDP

U.S. Senate candidate and former U.S. Representative Christopher Shays discusses the second quarter GDP report.

Stratford - Christopher Shays, Republican candidate for United States Senate, released this statement on today's second quarter GDP report.

"Today's report from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis on the economy's anemic second quarter growth of just 1.5% shows an economy being suffocated by the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve.

The President's massive tax increases scheduled for January 1 are causing businesses to hold off on investment, therefore stunting productivity.

Real GDP growth at only 1.5% means no job growth at all, and this will only get worse as we approach Obama's "Taxmageddon" on January 1.

If our economy had grown at 1.6% over our entire history, right now our GDP would be only about $190 billion, rather than $15.5 trillion.  Instead of having the world’s #1 economy, we would be #49.  And we would not have won WWII and the Cold War. 

We must achieve 4% real economic growth, which is historically normal for America.

President Obama has had three years to reverse our economic downturn and has failed to lead America in the right direction.  He is focused on the wrong issues and continues to neglect the importance of economic growth.

The only way to get people back to work is by sending the right Senators to Washington to put our nation on a new path to prosperity. Chris Murphy’s record of partisan support for Nancy Pelosi’s and President Obama’s broken policies is not the right path.  Linda McMahon has no experience and lacks the understanding of the issues to make any significant changes.

We need to send a Senator from Connecticut with the experience to fix this problem.  I have the knowledge, experience and guts to hit the ground running on day one, roll up my sleeves and help restore sanity to Washington."

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

MAC August 03, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Romney knows that sharks don't leave when you throw them more raw meat! Yooper loves Obama's ABYSMALLY FAILED job performance!!! http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/03/taking-down-harry-reids-accusations-against-romney/ ..."Was it even appropriate for Reid to accuse Romney on the Senate floor? ... would that be an abuse of power? Is that a powerful public official using his position to target an individual private citizen? It sure seems like it. "Second, Thiessen mockingly accused Reid of beating his wife, and said the burden of proof was on Reid to prove Thiessen wrong....clearly, an unsourced accusation requires zero response. More importantly, it should completely destroy the credibility of the accuser, especially one as experienced and powerful as Reid. ...because of Reid’s position as Senate Majority Leader. "Third, according to Thiessen, Reid declined an official request to put out his own recent tax returns. Hypocrisy much? "In watching this little back-and-forth, it occurred to me that Nevada taxpayers might have an argument if they accuse Reid of engaging in campaign work on the Senate floor. Such campaigning is illegal, but it sure seems like Reid was giving Obama a political boost during a time when he should have been acting as Senate Majority Leader. And given Reid’s intent to break the law by not passing a budget through the Senate for the fourth year in a row, we know how much he believes the laws of our land apply to him."...
Tom Falconieri August 04, 2012 at 12:07 AM
I noticed you did not comment on the TAXES she pays in STAMFORD!!! Liberals always skirting the obvious. I cant spell it is a handicap. Can you do MATH??? Guess not liberals dont know how to use or do they own a calculator. Now is the ENGLISH CLASS OVER SKIPPY!!! So do you say LINDA does not give Stanford a heap of cash QUESTION 1 Does Linda give stamford LOADS OF TAX MONEY QUESTION 2 do you liberals actually believe that building is TAX FREE QUESTION # choose wisely Bet the LIBS wont answer honestly
brutus August 04, 2012 at 01:18 AM
Yooper, I'm not a member of any militia, nor do I know the names of any in CT. but why would a militia need a name? and why would there need to be a membership? why would one even need to exist at this point? we have the right to bear arms so that we could form a militia in the event that one is needed. I know militias sound scary to people because the media has portrayed them as crazy paranoid racist anti-government gun nuts. but who do you think fought the British?
Veritas vos liberabit August 04, 2012 at 01:25 AM
Hey Mac, did you have a big hissy fit over Georgie Bush's alcoholism and drug use? I'm guessing that Bushie did more drugs in a month that Mr Obama did in his life, and the booze, probably more in a weekend!
Yooper August 04, 2012 at 01:42 AM
Golly gee. I knew logic wasn't your strong point, but I thought you could do better than this. And before we get into that, my point was that Mitt should have either ignored Reid's comments as unsubstantiated or at least responded in a way that didn't highlight his continuing refusal to be honest and open with American voters. Now for your little hypothetical. If you had credible evidence of some events you could present that. For me to present evidence of events that never happened is impossible. We both know that. The Romney situation is quite the opposite. He can present official legal documents to show what he paid in taxes. No one else can present anything to contradict that
G August 04, 2012 at 02:16 AM
Who is Murray? I thought Obama's dog was named Bo?
G August 04, 2012 at 02:21 AM
It would be interesting to know what the McMahons paid in taxes the last 2 years, seeing as they lost about 500 million $$ in that time frame, http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Freefall-of-WWE-stock-costs-McMahons-500M-3742259.php
Carl August 04, 2012 at 02:34 AM
G, WWE lost 500 mil in market cap. The McMahons own about half, so they 'only' lost 250. And I don't think they realized that so, they probably haven't lost anything yet.
G August 04, 2012 at 02:52 AM
Thanks for clarifying that, Carl. You are absolutely correct. I guess my point is that the WWE is not quite as wildly successful as many suggest. According to the article, Linda McMurray is not involved in WWE anymore, so she has apparently decided to take the money and run...for the Senate. I think it would be very interesting to see her tax returns.
sebastian dangerfield August 04, 2012 at 04:04 PM
yooper, Im not strong on logic? I went for the pedophile to show that accusations are easy. I went for the obama college trasnscripts to show that you can do the same thing. Its below the belt politics, yooper. If you cant see that , thats not a feather in your cap. In this method, you can force anyone to release anything you want. If Im not strong on logic, then please tell me, in your strong logical mind, why the I.R.S has not gone after Romney , if he is evading his tax responsibility. One other thing, nearly all of Romney's income, is attached to capital gains. When the stock market crashed in 2008, I guess he didnt make any money...and that year, he possibly didnt pay taxes, as he had no income. But, again, yooper, you accuse me of not being logical...if you could just explain how harry reid can accuse the man of not paying anything for a decade, and the irs didnt pursue, that would be great. If you fail to find the logic, then , Id expect some responsibility on your end, of acknowledging, that mr reid may be using dirty tactics, to force romney to release things that he isnt obliged to release--such as college transcripts, or I believe mrs obama's college thesis.(prior to the 2008 election). Would you have been okay, with some Congressman, saying that he had it on good source that michelle's thesis opined that her thesis argued for enslaving white people? And if she wanted to prove otherwise, she could release it?
sebastian dangerfield August 04, 2012 at 04:11 PM
writes michelle obama, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong." So, even though people treat her equally, she says, it doesnt matter....just like her husband, she is obsessed with her race..... Yet, people argue that he is not a racist. Interesting. Substitute black for white, and white for black above, and make it ann romney's thesis---you thiink that would be acceptable? Im guessing not. But, hey , its apparently ok, to change values, based on your race, and political persuasion.
sebastian dangerfield August 04, 2012 at 04:22 PM
and further to the harry reid b.s. accusations, NPR recently did a show, and spoke about the boundaries that seem to be eroding in campaigns---the way out of context "I like to fire people" the show made this statement: "Democrats are more willing for their politicians to lie to a higher degree than the Republicans." thanks npr. i agree
LSA August 04, 2012 at 05:08 PM
and you are OBSESSED with not having a black president, it is so obvious.
sebastian dangerfield August 04, 2012 at 06:01 PM
lsa How is it obvious? you couldnt be further from the truth....but , thats just part of the liberal mantra---accuse of bigotry. Why is bigotry acceptable, when its pro black? Here is the thing, people like sharpton serve a useful purpose. They galvanize and energize their demographic. But, their power is limited to their ability to influence. They achieve results via protests and boycotts... Once you become part of government, be it a policeman, a judge, a congressman, then you cant advocate for one group over another. But--that is exponential when you become President. If Obama wanted to remain a fervent advocate for black causes, (but not pushing down one to favor the other) he should have remained a community organizer. Once he took the oath to serve the law of the land and to represent ALL citizens, he needed to transition.....I cant say its been super unfair, but its obvious where his allegiances are. And I find that repulsive..... Now--just let me know why its obvious I am anti-black, other than you find it convenient. ( I find those arguments so perverse--- and so dumb--- seriously, how can people like you have any self-respect, after you just blindly accuse people of racism? )
Yooper August 04, 2012 at 06:39 PM
You know, LDC, you tap dance a lot better than Romney. You manage to avoid direct questions and instead throw up straw man arguments and misdirections (transcripts, theses). No doubt you will try it again. The question was "Did Romney have years when he paid no federal income tax?" NOT, "Did Romney cheat on his federal income tax returns?" You undoubtedly know about General Electric and other large corporations paying no federal income tax. That was not illegal. That was utilizing all relevant provisions of the tax code to their financial advantage. Be assured, the IRS aggressively pursues tax cheats and would not ignore anyone who may have fraudulently avoided paying millions in taxes. My guess is that Romney did NOT cheat on his taxes, but DID use a lot of exotic loopholes that non-millionaires have never heard of to pay very, very low (if not zero)taxes. It is clear that Romney does not want that to become public knowledge so he avoids it, says he pays every dollar he owed, and concludes with "trust me".
Yooper August 04, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Unfortunately Mitt has a very poor record of "trust". When he went to Utah to "save" the Olympics he filed his taxes as a Utah resident (and saved many thousands on his Utah home). When he went back to Massachusetts to run for Governor, he claimed he had been a Massachusetts resident so he could meet residency requirements. After being caught in this lie he amended his returns to change his residency Massachusetts and paid back taxes. Oh, but it gets better. When questioned about actions of Bain from 1999 to 2002, Mitt likes to say he had no involvement in the company, but when he wanted to show residency to run for Governor he cites Massachusetts to attend board meeting of the company where he was President and sole stock holder. So when you ask Mitt anything his answer depends on who is asking and what his explanation of the day happens to be.
sebastian dangerfield August 04, 2012 at 07:32 PM
ANN ROMNEY SAYS, "My experiences in college have made me far more aware of my 'Whiteness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at college no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my Black classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong.
Yooper August 04, 2012 at 08:02 PM
At least you are making some use of your JD. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law and the facts are not on your side, pound the table.
sebastian dangerfield August 04, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Yooper Haha Good one. I love someone who challenges logic, then forget his first point, while in a rush to get to some other point (no matter how specious it is). Yooper You say he filed his Utah taxes...blah blah to save money on a house? No idea what that means...? How can he save money, when you are trying to claim he paid no taxes? You love the term "straw man argument---I think you have mentioned it --what a dozen times in the past 2 weeks--but there is nothing straw man about claiming someone pays no taxes, but then asking about the IRS, since you yourself, say that Mitt paid backtaxes and paid taxes in both utah and massachusetts. Yooper, for someone long on logic, how can you both pay taxes, and not pay taxes? We already saw his 2010 -and preliminary 2011. If he paid taxes in 2002 how can he not have paid for a decade? Is that logical? Let me know.. and im happy to answer any questions...you say I avoid directly answering them... Im sorry--can you repeat what ever you asked. I am always happy to arrive at the truth....but attaching some legitimacy to harry reid's accusations, is somewhat similar to the birther argument. Those idiots say "if he isnt showing it, then he must be hiding something. I thought that was nonsense..i think this is nonsense. And while youre at it , can you describe the loopholes that allow no taxes to be paid, and then perhaps some commentary about why he should pay taxes if loopholes were written in? thanks
sebastian dangerfield August 04, 2012 at 10:49 PM
By the way--talk about straw man this notion of 'exporting jobs -while at bain, is simply more nonsense. 1- take a look at obamas stimulus spending, and find out how much went overseas.... bain was personal money, stimulus is MY money -- so, if the exporting of money or jobs overseas is really an objection, then wouldnt you hold the white house more contemptable than a private company? "DNC Spokeswoman Melanie Roussell says on KPCC radio that stimulus money was spent overseas." So, yooper, please no dancing, or avoidance--is it wrong to send money/jobs overseas or isnt it. Is it more wrong to send taxpayer money? You speak about GE and then liken that to an individual-- you realize they have very little in common -i hope. If not, let me tell you that american citizens --regardless of where they live (romania or washington) owe federal tax.. companies can avoid tax by incorporating or keeping profits where they are earned-- terrible analogy yooper.
sebastian dangerfield August 04, 2012 at 11:23 PM
am i pounding the table? Which facts do I site that are incorrect? You claim that if someone makes an accusation, that essentially it is up to the accused to clear their name. I dont see it that way. I see it that the accuser has the obligation to provide the proof. Simply stating that "i heard it on credible grounds' , while providing no other details, is not really the way our system works. You know that, right? Why would you think that it should work differently for members of Congress than it works for the rest of us. I hate the oft -used "innocent until proven guilty' refrain, but it does seem to be a shifting value amongst liberals. Is a man innocent until proven guilty, or is it your opinion yooper, that a man is guilty when accused, and it is up to him to provide proof otherwise? By the way, I mentioned thesis and college transcripts not to validate those calls for disclosure, but to say that they have no obligation. Its not a straw man---its simply an example of where cries of " you must be hiding something' are not cool.
Christine Rose August 05, 2012 at 04:33 AM
Take a deep breath everyone. :-) Please keep it clean and respectful. Thanks!
Tom Falconieri August 05, 2012 at 10:54 AM
NOPE i want a president that actually knows what He or She is actually doing!!! This president clearly does not have a CLUE. If by now people don't realize this they are hopelessly BRAIN WASHED or just don't understand how much trouble the United States is actually in!!! We cant just keep spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.
Alex Tytler August 05, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Can't wait for Ocomrade to get kicked out and start the rest of his life thinking about what an utter failure he is.
BlackDawg August 05, 2012 at 12:30 PM
At least President Carter is still alive and will be able to go to his grave knowing that he is no longer the worst president in U.S. history.
John W August 05, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Tom, at least drunk sailors stop spending when they run out of money.
--- August 05, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Simple question: Is America, as a financial power and world leader, better than She was 4 years ago? If not, seeing how we have been subjected to The 111th Democrat-controlled Congress and the policies of a Socialist President, then when will you be realistic and point that finger of blame? President Bush was not a great President. But even he cannot be blamed any longer for the inadequacies and incompetence of a Socialist President and the atrocious 111th Congress. It's time for a change, America. Romney at least believes in American exceptionalism. No one can prove, by his own words and apologies, that our current President does. Do the research. See who he has surrounded himself with. It's a no-brainer, really.
Rocky August 05, 2012 at 03:30 PM
Duh YES ! The Dow and S&P have both nearly doubled under Obama's leadership. Everyones 401K has benefited tremendously!
sebastian dangerfield August 05, 2012 at 04:18 PM
rocky, I asked you befoore, when you were another name, (how many names have you had, more or less than 80?) we have witnessed a number of democratic controlled municipalities declare bankruptcy, over their pension obligations over the past 12 months. If , as you say, 401k ,or retirement money has greatly benefitted from obama's stewardship of the economy, can we safely conlude that the democrats running these munipalities have really given away too much? And if you are crediting obama with the economy, are you going to say that you will no longer blame bush for the economy? If every job that has been created , were created by the government, ===and you consider the 800 bio dollar stimulus package---that would mean that every job cost us 200k. is that really a good job? The economy just lost 1.2 mio jobs from june to july (not the 163k+ that was reported (because of season adjusting) ---this economy stinks.....but if you want to give it to obama, please keep it there.
Redneck Rob January 22, 2013 at 12:12 AM
THANK GAWD for President O'Bama........................ http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2013/01/18/hail-to-the-chief-dow-returns-72-in-obamas-first-term/?KEYWORDS=obama+first+term


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »