Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by The Infidel, Jul 30, 2012.
obama was a senator in the Democratic controlled congress.
And? Who controls spending and legislation?
It's so adorable and completely predictable that you looney loopey lefties are still going to refuse to accept that The ONE bears responsibility.
The president who signs the bills sent to his desk. Congress can only be responsible if it passes the bill over the president's veto. No veto, the president owns it, that's the rule CON$ have been using to credit Reagan economically for everything the Dems "controlled" in the 1980s.
The president can only spend what congress allows.
Bush signed the bill. He owns it.
Reminder that this thread is in the CDZ folks.
Reagan inherited double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, high gasoline prices, and a very high misery index when he took office. And in an effort to get things under control, he went along with the Democratic Congress's push to raise taxes in return for a promise of three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar in new taxes.
We got the taxes. We didn't get the promised spending cuts. And the unemployment rate continued to rise to 9.5% in Reagans, second and third years. So he went over the head of Congress to the people who supported him in getting tax reform--reduction of tax rates--that brought the recession to an end and prompted a strong economic surge. Unemployment was back down to just over 7% in 1984. He carried every state but Mondale's Minnesota in that election and almost won that.
Throughout his second term, unemployement continued to fall to 5.4% when he left office and he handed George H.W. Bush a strong economy but unacceptable (for that time) deficits. Unfortunately President Bush 41 tried to deal with the deficits in the same way Reagan did--by raising taxes in return for promised spending cuts. Again we got the taxes without the cuts. The economy faltered, unemployement was increasing sharply, and it cost Bush that election.
Clinton raised taxes in his first two years with poor results, but when the GOP reformers took over Congress in 1994, the tax rates were again brought down, the economy soared (with some help from the dot.com bubble) and unemployment came down. They also managed to balance the budget for the first time in a very long time.
George W. Bush early on had to deal with 9/11 and later on Katrina, plus the costs of two wars; however his tax reforms put the economy on an even keel and we did well until the housing bubble crash of 2008.
I can't find a single thing in Obama's resume for the past four years that has made anything better, and he seems to be hell bent on policy that will make things worse. On purpose? There is a great deal of speculation about that, but whatever the motives may or may not be, I don't want another four years of making things worse.
Talk about revisionist history!!!!!
St Ronnie CUT taxes his FIRST year and unemployment soared from 7.6% to 10.8% by the end of his second year. Reagan then RAISED taxes, the largest peacetime tax increase in history, and the economy recovered. And it was Reagan who welshed on the spending cuts because he would not go along with cuts to his Star Wars boondoggle!!! If you remember Senator Dole gave him hell when he would not support the deal he had worked out with Tip O'Neill.
And Clinton's tax reforms, which raised taxes on the rich and cut them on the middle class, are what got the economy moving again. The GOP had nothing to do with it as not a single one voted for it. After it succeeded the GOP then tried to take credit for it, at least until the tech bubble burst and then suddenly it was Clinton's economy again.
Yes, there was a tax cut in 1981 followed by a series of tax increases throughout Reagan's tenure. I believe the unemployment rate did not exceed 9.5% (both in 82 and 83) however. And had dropped to something over 7% by 1984 and we had close to full employment when he left office. (With 5% considered essentially full employment at that time.)
The tax increases were to deal with deficits resulting from massive spending, mostly to rebuild the military that Carter had so decimated to the point it was almost gutted. Reagan rebuilt our defense capabilities, increased military pay and veteran's benefits, and made us again so powerful that the U.S.S.R. could not keep pace and bankrupted itself trying.
The fact remains that Reagan was able to create a positive spirit in America again and that is why he carried 49 of 50 states in 1984. And if you look at the maps that included almost all the counties in all those states too. He carried 58.8% of the vote to Mondale's 40.6%.
And he did it with one simple line: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Do you think Barack Obama would dare use that line this year?
There it is, the Right chooses to "believe" their disinformation even after they were told the truth!!! St Ronnie's unemployment peaked at 10.8% in both November and December of 1982.
Carter decimated nothing in the military and Reagan ran up the generational debt on boondoggles like Star Wars, not rebuilding the already most powerful in the world American military. The USSR was collapsing from within independent of Reagan and would have fallen without Reagan bankrupting this country. Reagan turned America from a creditor nation into a permanent debtor nation.
Separate names with a comma.