Consumers create jobs.

[oldernwiser]

Unemployment stood at 4.6 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (The Democrats) took over control of the purse strings in 2007...an astonishing slide in the economy then followed.

That's how it's worked for decades...

Congress passes laws, and raises taxes. Bases on how things work, Republican control of both houses should return unemployment back to 4%.

Well - let's throw real information on this fire.
Since 1959, Republicans have only had a majority in both the house and the senate twice - once from 1993 to 2001 (where they lost the majority to a party switcher from VT), and once from 2003 to 2005.

Looking over past unemployment data and comparing it to who was in control of congress and who was president at the time leads me to believe that unemployment tends to rise and fall. Further, some people have historically done a better job of controlling it than others. We need more of those people now.

Don't be stupid - the answer isn't based on the party, the answer lies in the people we elect. There are stupid republicans as well as smart democrats.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are stupid republicans as well as smart democrats.

There are only two political philosophies: freedom and government. If politicans are dumb it does not matter as long as they follow a philosophy.

In theory all Democrats are dumb since they don't understand freedom while all Republicans are smart since they do understand freedom.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession

1) green jobs

2) tax the rich

am I missing something??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Don't be stupid - the answer isn't based on the party,.

of course it is since the two parties embody the two political philosophies that have emerged out of human history!!

 

[Oldstyle]

[
Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession

1) green jobs

2) tax the rich

am I missing something??

Ah...that's his plan to try and get "reelected", Ed...I think that even someone as clueless as Barry is about economics knows that neither green jobs nor tax the rich is going to get us out of this economic downturn. Those things are just smoke and mirrors to divert the electorate's attention away from how badly he's handled his job since taking over as President.

If Obama gets in for another four years we're going to grind along with 1 to 2% growth and with unemployment hovering somewhere around 8%.

 

[Rshermr]

Are you kidding? Your summation of what occurred during the Reagan Presidency was so full of factual errors and misinterpretations of what really happened as to be laughable.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

The truth is...after getting the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him under control (notice how Reagan actually DID something rather than just blame his predecessor?) cutting the inflation rate by half in only a couple years (which was the cause of higher unemployment by the way as he tightened up the money supply) Reagan cut taxes, cut government regulations and cut discretionary spending other than to the military. That set us up for the longest sustained period of time in our nation's history without a recession, creating vast amounts of wealth as we increased the size of our economy and added 20 million new jobs (not jobs "saved" but actual jobs CREATED!!!).

Now compare THAT to what Barack Obama has done since coming into office! Barry has never had a plan to fix the economy...he's just kept interest rates as low as he could by having the Fed pump out cash (which makes every dollar in our wallets worth less...a hidden Obama "tax") and kept as many of his union buddies and supporters in the Public Sector and the "Green Energy" sector flush with cash with his so called stimulus...while waiting for the economy to recover on it's own. "THAT" is Barry's plan!!! To do nothing to help the Private Sector and just hope that they can succeed despite him.

You use Peter Ferarra?? The well known conservative who pushes right wing dogma on every right wing web site known to man?? You quoted an OP ED piece, by a right winger, who has never ever said anything good about a dem, or anything bad about Reagan.
Maybe I should quote some stuff from move on!!! But then, I won't. I prefer to maintain my integrity by staying with impartial sources.
What I said about reagan is completely true. I can and have proven so with government numbers. You can not disprove anything that I have said, can you dipshit. Just more dogma. You are a true waste of time.,
So come on, oldstyle. You said what I posted was full of factual errors. Lets see what you have. But you will look foolish, because I can prove what I said. What the hell, you look foolish all of the time, anyway.

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. Reagan made a big deal of how decreasing tax rates would INCREASE tax revenue. Hard to find an economist who agreed with him. And tax revenue decreased drastically. By a year after the great tax decrease, reagan was increasing taxes and borrowing like crazy. If I am wrong, lets see your proof. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. Nice to know you believe you know more than I do about the reagan administration. I think I know more. So, guess it is a tie. But, I can prove what I am saying, quite easily. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage. He used Keynsian economic theory. You know, raise money and deficit spend

ge. Sorry, oldstyle, that is true bs. He had an improving economy with 7% unemployment. He took it to 10.8% in a period of 17 months. And congress did not block his efforts to fix the problem, with tax increases, borrowing and spending. Nothing like this group of repub congressmen.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? Oldtime, you are not telling the truth somewhere along the line. He is trying to do what reagan did after he had messed up his own economy with Supply Side Economics. Apparently you do not know much about the reagan economy. I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back tol brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/It-s-Official-Watching-Fo-in-General_News-120522-817.htmtil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

 

[Rshermr]

[
Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession

1) green jobs

2) tax the rich

am I missing something??

Ah...that's his plan to try and get "reelected", Ed...I think that even someone as clueless as Barry is about economics knows that neither green jobs nor tax the rich is going to get us out of this economic downturn. Those things are just smoke and mirrors to divert the electorate's attention away from how badly he's handled his job since taking over as President.

If Obama gets in for another four years we're going to grind along with 1 to 2% growth and with unemployment hovering somewhere around 8%.

Wow. A couple of dogma slingers slinging the con dogma. How profound they are.
Can you two geniuses tell us all your plans to decrease unemployment AND show an example of how it has worked in the past????
Come on, give it a try. It will be fun.

 

[Oldstyle]

You use Peter Ferarra?? The well known conservative who pushes right wing dogma on every right wing web site known to man?? You quoted an OP ED piece, by a right winger, who has never ever said anything good about a dem, or anything bad about Reagan.
Maybe I should quote some stuff from move on!!! But then, I won't. I prefer to maintain my integrity by staying with impartial sources.
What I said about reagan is completely true. I can and have proven so with government numbers. You can not disprove anything that I have said, can you dipshit. Just more dogma. You are a true waste of time.,
So come on, oldstyle. You said what I posted was full of factual errors. Lets see what you have. But you will look foolish, because I can prove what I said. What the hell, you look foolish all of the time, anyway.

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. Reagan made a big deal of how decreasing tax rates would INCREASE tax revenue. Hard to find an economist who agreed with him. And tax revenue decreased drastically. By a year after the great tax decrease, reagan was increasing taxes and borrowing like crazy. If I am wrong, lets see your proof. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. Nice to know you believe you know more than I do about the reagan administration. I think I know more. So, guess it is a tie. But, I can prove what I am saying, quite easily. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage. He used Keynsian economic theory. You know, raise money and deficit spend

ge. Sorry, oldstyle, that is true bs. He had an improving economy with 7% unemployment. He took it to 10.8% in a period of 17 months. And congress did not block his efforts to fix the problem, with tax increases, borrowing and spending. Nothing like this group of repub congressmen.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? Oldtime, you are not telling the truth somewhere along the line. He is trying to do what reagan did after he had messed up his own economy with Supply Side Economics. Apparently you do not know much about the reagan economy. I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back tol brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

 

[Wiseacre]

" I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that? "


I believe I can help with that: raise taxes on the top 1% even though it's a drop in the bucket compared to our deficit, and spend money on pet liberal projects that are not economically viable. Especially if their own bundlers and supporters will profit from it. Spend money on every possible constituent to buy their votes, whether it actually helps the economy or not.

Do not change any of the entitlement programs even though everyone from God on down has said they are not sustainable as is, and regulate the crap out of all US businesses. Oh, and require all gov't contracts to be handed out only to unionized companies even if it's more expensive to the taxpayers.

 

[Oldstyle]

Would ANY of you progressives care to take a crack at summing up what Barry's plan is to get the economy going again?

A tax raise that goes against the very Keynesian economic fundamentals that progressives have always put forth as the way to go?

A "jobs plan" that is simply a watered down version of his failed stimulus?

Come on guys...what IS Barry's plan to get the country going again?

 

[Rshermr]

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. Reagan made a big deal of how decreasing tax rates would INCREASE tax revenue. Hard to find an economist who agreed with him. And tax revenue decreased drastically. By a year after the great tax decrease, reagan was increasing taxes and borrowing like crazy. If I am wrong, lets see your proof. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. Nice to know you believe you know more than I do about the reagan administration. I think I know more. So, guess it is a tie. But, I can prove what I am saying, quite easily. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage. He used Keynsian economic theory. You know, raise money and deficit spend

ge. Sorry, oldstyle, that is true bs. He had an improving economy with 7% unemployment. He took it to 10.8% in a period of 17 months. And congress did not block his efforts to fix the problem, with tax increases, borrowing and spending. Nothing like this group of repub congressmen.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? Oldtime, you are not telling the truth somewhere along the line. He is trying to do what reagan did after he had messed up his own economy with Supply Side Economics. Apparently you do not know much about the reagan economy. I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back tol brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Wow. An attempt to rewrite reagans economic policies.

 

[ccravens]

You use Peter Ferarra?? The well known conservative who pushes right wing dogma on every right wing web site known to man?? You quoted an OP ED piece, by a right winger, who has never ever said anything good about a dem, or anything bad about Reagan.
Maybe I should quote some stuff from move on!!! But then, I won't. I prefer to maintain my integrity by staying with impartial sources.
What I said about reagan is completely true. I can and have proven so with government numbers. You can not disprove anything that I have said, can you dipshit. Just more dogma. You are a true waste of time.,
So come on, oldstyle. You said what I posted was full of factual errors. Lets see what you have. But you will look foolish, because I can prove what I said. What the hell, you look foolish all of the time, anyway.

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. Reagan made a big deal of how decreasing tax rates would INCREASE tax revenue. Hard to find an economist who agreed with him. And tax revenue decreased drastically. By a year after the great tax decrease, reagan was increasing taxes and borrowing like crazy. If I am wrong, lets see your proof. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. Nice to know you believe you know more than I do about the reagan administration. I think I know more. So, guess it is a tie. But, I can prove what I am saying, quite easily. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage. He used Keynsian economic theory. You know, raise money and deficit spend

ge. Sorry, oldstyle, that is true bs. He had an improving economy with 7% unemployment. He took it to 10.8% in a period of 17 months. And congress did not block his efforts to fix the problem, with tax increases, borrowing and spending. Nothing like this group of repub congressmen.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? Oldtime, you are not telling the truth somewhere along the line. He is trying to do what reagan did after he had messed up his own economy with Supply Side Economics. Apparently you do not know much about the reagan economy. I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back tol brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

I'm trying to think whether I've ever heard such an ideologically-driven, partisan history of the economic issues of the 1980s.

Nope, I can't.

Typical liberal dogma slinger.

MSNBC much?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that?

very very true but there are more obvious examples. In my town they dropped the tax and making moves and now all over town you suddenly see hollywood making movies. The liberals put a luxury tax on yachts and people stopped buying yachts so the middle class who made and serviced the yachts lost their jobs. Ireland dropped their corporate tax and most of the world's major corporations moved there.

A liberal is actually stupid enough to tell you that if you tax something or add to the price of something people will buy more of it. Liberals are not thinkers at all. The very concept has no meaning to them. THey are in no way fit to participate in a democracy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Wow. An attempt to rewrite reagans economic policies.

I rewrote Reagan's economic policies? How so? I simply stated what his policies WERE. Would you care to dispute what I put forward? Did Reagan NOT first attack inflation by tightening up the money supply? Did he NOT get rid of Jimmy Carter's price controls on oil? Did he NOT then restructure the tax code and cut taxes?

I don't think you really CAN argue economics with me, Rshermr because A) you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the subject and B) you've let your politics blind you to reality.

I've asked this several times now and you and the rest of the Progressives on the board have avoided it like Superman avoids Kryptonite. What "is" Barry's economic plan to move the country forward? Since you claim to know so much about economics and are such a strong supporter of Obama then you obviously can list what the President is proposing to make the economy take off? Right? So let's hear it!

 

[Rshermr]

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. Reagan made a big deal of how decreasing tax rates would INCREASE tax revenue. Hard to find an economist who agreed with him. And tax revenue decreased drastically. By a year after the great tax decrease, reagan was increasing taxes and borrowing like crazy. If I am wrong, lets see your proof. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. Nice to know you believe you know more than I do about the reagan administration. I think I know more. So, guess it is a tie. But, I can prove what I am saying, quite easily. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage. He used Keynsian economic theory. You know, raise money and deficit spend

ge. Sorry, oldstyle, that is true bs. He had an improving economy with 7% unemployment. He took it to 10.8% in a period of 17 months. And congress did not block his efforts to fix the problem, with tax increases, borrowing and spending. Nothing like this group of repub congressmen.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? Oldtime, you are not telling the truth somewhere along the line. He is trying to do what reagan did after he had messed up his own economy with Supply Side Economics. Apparently you do not know much about the reagan economy. I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back tol brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Sure.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Sure.

You know what you are, Rshermr? You're a poser. You come on this board and pretend to know about economics and history...spouting off about what Ronald Reagan did when HE was President...but when someone calls you on your nonsense you run away and hide. Pathetic...

 

[Rshermr]

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. Reagan made a big deal of how decreasing tax rates would INCREASE tax revenue. Hard to find an economist who agreed with him. And tax revenue decreased drastically. By a year after the great tax decrease, reagan was increasing taxes and borrowing like crazy. If I am wrong, lets see your proof. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. Nice to know you believe you know more than I do about the reagan administration. I think I know more. So, guess it is a tie. But, I can prove what I am saying, quite easily. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage. He used Keynsian economic theory. You know, raise money and deficit spend

Sorry, oldstyle, that is true bs. He had an improving economy with 7% unemployment. He took it to 10.8% in a period of 17 months. And congress did not block his efforts to fix the problem, with tax increases, borrowing and spending. Nothing like this group of repub congressmen.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? Oldtime, you are not telling the truth somewhere along the line. He is trying to do what reagan did after he had messed up his own economy with Supply Side Economics. Apparently you do not know much about the reagan economy. I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back tol brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. Reagan made a big deal of how decreasing tax rates would INCREASE tax revenue. Hard to find an economist who agreed with him. And tax revenue decreased drastically. By a year after the great tax decrease, reagan was increasing taxes and borrowing like crazy. If I am wrong, lets see your proof. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. Nice to know you believe you know more than I do about the reagan administration. I think I know more. So, guess it is a tie. But, I can prove what I am saying, quite easily. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage. He used Keynsian economic theory. You know, raise money and deficit spend

ge. Sorry, oldstyle, that is true bs. He had an improving economy with 7% unemployment. He took it to 10.8% in a period of 17 months. And congress did not block his efforts to fix the problem, with tax increases, borrowing and spending. Nothing like this group of repub congressmen.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? Oldtime, you are not telling the truth somewhere along the line. He is trying to do what reagan did after he had messed up his own economy with Supply Side Economics. Apparently you do not know much about the reagan economy. I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back tol brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?

Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? I said during a bad economy, high unemployment. There is nothing at all wrong with lowering taxes in a good economy, which Kennedy had. Reagan, however, had a 7.4% unemployment rate when he launched his major tax decrease. And as I keep saying, unemployment started upwards and went to almost 11% And if that is what you call helping the economy, then I guess we have a great one now. So, you make it sound as if lowering tax rates helped, which it did not. I remember the time well. All of the promises of great economic performance as a result of the reduction did not occur. Instead, gov jobs were cut to try to stem the offset the lowering of revenues that resulted. What happened is exactly what you would expect when you lower taxes greatly. Public jobs are lost, demand goes down, and private jobs are lost as demand decreases. That is exactly what happened to reagan. The deficit grew, and the results were that the administration used stimulus spending to get the economy moving. They financed the stimulus by borrowing, and by increasing taxes. if getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? Again, I have nothing at all with reducing unuseful regulation. But I have seen no evidence of any kind that it has anything to do with stimulating economic growth. You see, it has nothing at all to do with increasing demand. You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it. I am simply stating facts. nothing more or less. and, oldstyle me boy, I do understand economics. I have a degree in economics, and taught economics at a 4 year school for a year. What I am explaining to you is basic Keynsian theory, which, if you understand economics as you say you do, you should recognize. But you do not seem to.
Are you saying that reagan did not raise taxes 11 times?? Are you saying he did not triple the national debt, borrowing more than all presidents before him combined. If you agree that he did these things, then why did he do them??? You do not answer those simple questions. And again, you have failed to show where lowering taxes have helped in a bad economy. Only, in reagans case, where it HURT the economy.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.
First of all, anyone who can not call a sitting president by his actual name, be he repub or dem, is an adolescent asshole.
So, relative to reagans plan, it was well known and documented. Feagan planned to lower taxes and decrease the us gov. He stated clearly that in doing so, he would increase gov revenues and lower unemployment as a result of greatly increased business activity. But, you see, that did not happen. Revenue went way down, he actually increased the size of the gov, and unemployment jumped to almost 11%. Great plan.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have ywayou forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. It is well known that obama tried to work with repubs. I am sure you believe he did not. But what he got was a record number of filibusters. And a leader of the repubs who stated that their major goal was to make obama a one turn pres. Ya think maybe helping the population by making unemoloyment less should not have been a higher priority???The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats. there was no real filibuster proof majority because of a group of blue dog dems, repubs with a d behind their name, fully owned by corporate interests

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Wow, another attempt to make us believe you are an economic wizard. You can not be ignorant enough to not understand obamas economic plan. It is the one repubs have been blocking for the past 3 years. It is the same one reagan used to get out of the economic mess supply side econ provided us and him. It is to increase taxes on the upper income earners, and use the revenues for stimulleus spending. To jump start the economy by providing work, and income, so that those workers can buy things that companies sell. Pretty basic keynsian economics, more or less.
So, Oldstyle, do you know anything at all about economics except supply side econ. That plan has hever worked, except to make the rich a lot richer. If you like an economy that sees the wealthy get more so, while the middle class gets smaller and smaller, then so be it. I can not argue that with you. Income inequality is a whole other issue, in terms of what happes as it gets greater and greater. But you probably do ot care. As long as the con dream of the wealthy getting more so occurs, you seem to be quite happy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

...Government spending and government jobs will put people to work... ...Consumers create jobs and not big or small businesses...

Words mean things (from here):

job

n.
1. A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession.
2. A position in which one is employed.​

​

In real life the federal government hires one person for every 35 people that business hire. The federal government does in fact hire millions of people --4,443,000!. Seriously though, let's keep in mind that total employment in the US is 142,415,000 --35 private jobs for every individual gov't job. Kind of like mommy washing Thanksgiving dishes and the 3-year old comes in to 'help'. Mommy puts the kid on a chair and lets him rinse a saucer, and the rest of the day the kid says "I did the dishes today!". Everyone smiles and looks at mommy. In the same way I have to smile when you point out that gov't creates jobs that I voted for and I paid for. Same for consumers creating jobs --only happens when someone hires a full time babysitter, maid, or other kind of regular help.

And none of those businesses take government contracts i'm sure.

Back in the adult world it's businesses that hire people.

So we have you on record as believing our brave men and women fighting wars overseas don't live in the "adult world"

Got it.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Sure" and "Wow"...that's the sum total of your response when challenged to back up your assertions, Rshermr?

You, my progressive friend are an intellectual "lightweight". Get back to me when you want to have a REAL discussion about economics. I'd love to hear you explain to me how Barry's call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the midst of an economic downturn is something that John Maynard Keynes EVER would have advocated. The rather ironic truth is that Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economic principles better than Barack Obama does...because HE raised taxes after the economy started to rapidly expand. Keynes would have applauded that...he'd have asked Barack Obama what the heck he was thinking.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"Sure" and "Wow"...that's the sum total of your response when challenged to back up your assertions, Rshermr?

You, my progressive friend are an intellectual "lightweight". Get back to me when you want to have a REAL discussion about economics. I'd love to hear you explain to me how Barry's call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the midst of an economic downturn is something that John Maynard Keynes EVER would have advocated. The rather ironic truth is that Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economic principles better than Barack Obama does...because HE raised taxes after the economy started to rapidly expand. Keynes would have applauded that...he'd have asked Barack Obama what the heck he was thinking.

the top tax bracket was 50% under reagan, false comparison.

obama is beset with two crises, not just one. if the only problem was the economy, your're right -raising taxes would be bad. but he has to balance that against the 2nd problem - the deficit. since raising taxes on the middle class and poor is clearly a worse idea than raising them on the wealthy, the latter is the better choice