Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Economics 101
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
Rshermr
VIP Member
That would be your opinion, me poor ignorant con tool. I did indeed read it. I understand keynesian theory, but do not buy the entire economic theory chapter and verse. There have been plenty of economic modifications and new theories since Keynes. And, unlike con tools who like to be told what to believe, I am like most thinking people. And consider Keynes a good early model but with a number of modifications.
Never read anything about soros, except in drivel posted by cons like you. Jesus, he is not 10% of the problem with money in politics. The vast majority is conservative tools, or actually their bosses. try to push how we who do not buy Top Down, or Supply Side, or Reaganomics are all keynesians. Problem is, the conservative mind does not understand that there are nuances to every theory of economics, a large number of economic theories, and parts of most that make since. But it is not at all hard to criticize is a grasp of a number of economic theories, and the real world. But with Friedman, his theory is based on the socio-economic system he purports to agree with. In total. Which is Libertarianism. And that, me boy, makes him a paid hack before he says anything. I would start to take him seriously if he could magically show a Libertarian country that has been successful ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IN THE PAST 250 YEARS. Barring that, those who believe Supply Side Economics are proven hacks, paid by the wealthy to make them more wealthy.
And relative to my understanding of economics, I never, ever brag. But you, me boy, have no room to criticize. You know zero. Just how to take orders and believe what you are told. I have lived in and around libertarians for over 50 years, and every single solitary one was ignorant as a post.
As far as
Your post makes one thing perfectly clear, you have no grasp of economics at all.
Really. Please let me know why that is, me boy. If you have the balls. I know you do not have the brains.
In the interim, that was your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
As for Libertarian, did you know that Noam Chomsky regards himself as a LIBERTARIAN Marxist?
Did you know that Noam Dhomsky regards himself as a libertarian Anarchist. Did you think that meant something, me boy. Am I supposed to care?
You don't even grasp the distinction between political and economic systems.
Libertarianism is a Socio-Economic system. A fuller definition would be: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy. So yes, it includes economics that is essentially Laissez-faire capitalism.
I highlighted above what I called it. If you read it, you will see that I called it a socio-economic system. Which, me boy, is what it is. Politically, it all depends on how you define any economy.
So, me con tool, try to be accurate when you criticize someone. Not that I would expect you to start now. Con tools like you are ALWAYS dishonest, so I expect it from you. And so far, you have delivered.
It needed congressional help. You see, no president can pass bills on his own. As you are pretending to not understand. And republicans BLOCKED every bill meant to help, and passed none of their own. Because, like you, they did not want to help, and they did not care about the middle class. Every single republican congressman voted against every bill brought forward to help the economy. EVERY ONE. And in every case, every single republican congressman voted against the bills.Obama DID cut taxes, TWICE,
Tax rates are higher than when he took office.
So, Todd shows how to lie without actually saying anything that is technically untrue. Like Obama raised federal tax rates. Which he did not. That taxes would be slightly higher would be, me con tool, for obvious reasons. The TEMPORARY bush tax cuts ran out. But the tax rates, again as you know, are lower than they were in the 1950's.
Which taxes do you think he cut?
Here are a few:
"This is an astonishing level of misunderstanding. The truth is that the major tax cuts enacted in the 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals. These tax cuts saved working families and individuals an average of $1,158 on the tax returns they will file by April 15. (The median tax cut was approximately $600.) The stimulus bill included several tax"
http://ctj.org/pdf/truthaboutobamataxcuts.pdf
and you just admitted that GDP "languished."
Weakest recovery ever!
and what bills did republicans bring forward to help lower unemployment and help with the slow recovery?
And republicans BLOCKED every bill meant to help, and passed none of their own.
Stopping his new spending plans was good.
Worked as you and the republican congress hoped. No stimulus was gained, and the recovery was not helped. So, yes, it was good for those who do not care what happened to the American Middle Class. To most of us, however, it was un-American.
Every single republican congressman voted against every bill brought forward to help the economy.
Obama spending plans wouldn't help the economy.
So you say. The cbo disagrees. Most economists disagree. But as I said, the conservatives did not care what they did to the economy or the american workers. They simply wanted the economy to fail. And to blame the other party. Which is un-american.
and what bills did republicans bring forward to help lower unemployment and help with the slow recovery?
You should look on Reid's desk.
Typical stupid con statement. If there was a bill sent forward, you can find it on the net. Easily. So, look at the internet. And quit proving you are a con tool. Try a rational argument. Maybe even with an impartial link.
If conservatives wanted to help the unemployment problem, they would have made an effort. If they did not care, they would not have made an effort. If they made and effort, there would be a bill, and we could find it. So, me boy, again, name the bill
Or are you just going to continue with short snarky unsubstantiated posts?
The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
Why do you continue, time after time, to require me to educate you? The national debt is, in a coupleof respects, like an account. It has input like taxes. And output like spending.
If you had a brain, you would have noticed that over the years, with few exceptions, it increased greatly because people were unemployed and that payments in were way down. Happens every single time we have a recession.
So, your con talking points are fine. But bullshit, to put it technically. What economists say is more important. And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Repealing Obamacare would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Rolling back some of Obama's idiotic regulations would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% would help employment.
Remove all deductions first, and the net result would be an increase in their taxes.
Do you think the corporate published tax rate makes any difference? Do you think corporations pay the published rate? Or are you simply pushing the great conservative lie?
What is the ACTUAL tax rate, me con tool? The rates actually paid are already well under 20% for most corporations. Funny how you ignore that fact. And the paid tax rates are all that matter. As you know.
"But most large corporations -- and about a third of small corporations -- did owe corporate income taxes that year, to the tune of nearly $268 billion. For tax years 2008 through 2012, large profitable companies paid, on average, about 14% of their pretax income in U.S. corporate income taxes,"
20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes
So, another lie exposed. With 20% of US Corporations paying zero federal taxes, and every con tool, like yourself, told to go out and tell everyone who will listen that US corporations pay the highest tax rates in the world, the wrong message is out there. Because, you see, it is another LIE.
So, where is the name of the bill republicans put forward to help speed the recovery and decrease the unemployment rate? Or would you prefer to just admit that they did NOTHING?
Would Obama sign anything like that?
What is the name or number of that Republican bill you are trying to ignore?
Happens every single time we have a recession.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! Derp.
The GOP National Debt was 12 trillion at the end of the last Bush fiscal year. Then you add the 2 trillion in interest on the GOP National Debt, and then you add the continuing expenses of Bush's wars including the continuing medical expenses, and Bush's unfunded increase in SS and Medicare, and all but about 3 trillion of the current GOP National Debt belongs to GOP presidents.The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
So that's why we have the weakest recovery ever, the smartest president ever had Republican predecessors.
I guess if the debt was $12 trillion higher than the day he took office, everything would be groovy.
Think about what you just said, me boy. After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history, he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT. (bold and red to try to get you to understand). And the economy responded as any thinking person would have thought.
So, yes indeed, you might try to listen to economists and stop posting conservative dogma. It is SO boring, and largely ignorant.
After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history
You never showed the spending cuts you're blaming for the jump in unemployment.
I guess your claims are dead on arrival.
he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes
Yup, raised the top rate from 70% all the way up to 28%.
and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 trillion, won the Cold War and gave us massive growth in jobs and GDP.
Obama added $8.6 trillion, so far, made us weaker around the world and gave us the weakest economic recovery in history.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101
Do liberals ever say what their most significant disagreement with Friedman is?
Rshermr
VIP Member
It needed congressional help. You see, no president can pass bills on his own. As you are pretending to not understand. And republicans BLOCKED every bill meant to help, and passed none of their own. Because, like you, they did not want to help, and they did not care about the middle class. Every single republican congressman voted against every bill brought forward to help the economy. EVERY ONE. And in every case, every single republican congressman voted against the bills.
and what bills did republicans bring forward to help lower unemployment and help with the slow recovery?
And republicans BLOCKED every bill meant to help, and passed none of their own.
Stopping his new spending plans was good.
Worked as you and the republican congress hoped. No stimulus was gained, and the recovery was not helped. So, yes, it was good for those who do not care what happened to the American Middle Class. To most of us, however, it was un-American.
Every single republican congressman voted against every bill brought forward to help the economy.
Obama spending plans wouldn't help the economy.
So you say. The cbo disagrees. Most economists disagree. But as I said, the conservatives did not care what they did to the economy or the american workers. They simply wanted the economy to fail. And to blame the other party. Which is un-american.
and what bills did republicans bring forward to help lower unemployment and help with the slow recovery?
You should look on Reid's desk.
Typical stupid con statement. If there was a bill sent forward, you can find it on the net. Easily. So, look at the internet. And quit proving you are a con tool. Try a rational argument. Maybe even with an impartial link.
If conservatives wanted to help the unemployment problem, they would have made an effort. If they did not care, they would not have made an effort. If they made and effort, there would be a bill, and we could find it. So, me boy, again, name the bill
Or are you just going to continue with short snarky unsubstantiated posts?
The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
Why do you continue, time after time, to require me to educate you? The national debt is, in a coupleof respects, like an account. It has input like taxes. And output like spending.
If you had a brain, you would have noticed that over the years, with few exceptions, it increased greatly because people were unemployed and that payments in were way down. Happens every single time we have a recession.
So, your con talking points are fine. But bullshit, to put it technically. What economists say is more important. And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Repealing Obamacare would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Rolling back some of Obama's idiotic regulations would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% would help employment.
Remove all deductions first, and the net result would be an increase in their taxes.
Do you think the corporate published tax rate makes any difference? Do you think corporations pay the published rate? Or are you simply pushing the great conservative lie?
What is the ACTUAL tax rate, me con tool? The rates actually paid are already well under 20% for most corporations. Funny how you ignore that fact. And the paid tax rates are all that matter. As you know.
"But most large corporations -- and about a third of small corporations -- did owe corporate income taxes that year, to the tune of nearly $268 billion. For tax years 2008 through 2012, large profitable companies paid, on average, about 14% of their pretax income in U.S. corporate income taxes,"
20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes
So, another lie exposed. With 20% of US Corporations paying zero federal taxes, and every con tool, like yourself, told to go out and tell everyone who will listen that US corporations pay the highest tax rates in the world, the wrong message is out there. Because, you see, it is another LIE.
So, where is the name of the bill republicans put forward to help speed the recovery and decrease the unemployment rate? Or would you prefer to just admit that they did NOTHING?
Would Obama sign anything like that?
What is the name or number of that Republican bill you are trying to ignore?
Happens every single time we have a recession.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
In real terms, yes. Reagans. The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you ever try to consider the concept of INFLATION? Could you buy a car in 2015 at the same price as the same car in 1982? And, of course, much of that increase was from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! DERP.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982. And, me boy, imagine how much more the 1982 recession would have run up the debt if reagan had not gotten people back to work, and paying taxes.
While by eliminating unemployment, Reagan spent enough to Triple the debt. By not using stimulus to lower the ue rate, he could have QUADRUPLED IT. And it would have kept growing for years and years and years.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
And republicans BLOCKED every bill meant to help, and passed none of their own.
Stopping his new spending plans was good.
Worked as you and the republican congress hoped. No stimulus was gained, and the recovery was not helped. So, yes, it was good for those who do not care what happened to the American Middle Class. To most of us, however, it was un-American.
Every single republican congressman voted against every bill brought forward to help the economy.
Obama spending plans wouldn't help the economy.
So you say. The cbo disagrees. Most economists disagree. But as I said, the conservatives did not care what they did to the economy or the american workers. They simply wanted the economy to fail. And to blame the other party. Which is un-american.
and what bills did republicans bring forward to help lower unemployment and help with the slow recovery?
You should look on Reid's desk.
Typical stupid con statement. If there was a bill sent forward, you can find it on the net. Easily. So, look at the internet. And quit proving you are a con tool. Try a rational argument. Maybe even with an impartial link.
If conservatives wanted to help the unemployment problem, they would have made an effort. If they did not care, they would not have made an effort. If they made and effort, there would be a bill, and we could find it. So, me boy, again, name the bill
Or are you just going to continue with short snarky unsubstantiated posts?
The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
Why do you continue, time after time, to require me to educate you? The national debt is, in a coupleof respects, like an account. It has input like taxes. And output like spending.
If you had a brain, you would have noticed that over the years, with few exceptions, it increased greatly because people were unemployed and that payments in were way down. Happens every single time we have a recession.
So, your con talking points are fine. But bullshit, to put it technically. What economists say is more important. And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Repealing Obamacare would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Rolling back some of Obama's idiotic regulations would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% would help employment.
Remove all deductions first, and the net result would be an increase in their taxes.
Do you think the corporate published tax rate makes any difference? Do you think corporations pay the published rate? Or are you simply pushing the great conservative lie?
What is the ACTUAL tax rate, me con tool? The rates actually paid are already well under 20% for most corporations. Funny how you ignore that fact. And the paid tax rates are all that matter. As you know.
"But most large corporations -- and about a third of small corporations -- did owe corporate income taxes that year, to the tune of nearly $268 billion. For tax years 2008 through 2012, large profitable companies paid, on average, about 14% of their pretax income in U.S. corporate income taxes,"
20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes
So, another lie exposed. With 20% of US Corporations paying zero federal taxes, and every con tool, like yourself, told to go out and tell everyone who will listen that US corporations pay the highest tax rates in the world, the wrong message is out there. Because, you see, it is another LIE.
So, where is the name of the bill republicans put forward to help speed the recovery and decrease the unemployment rate? Or would you prefer to just admit that they did NOTHING?
Would Obama sign anything like that?
What is the name or number of that Republican bill you are trying to ignore?
Happens every single time we have a recession.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
In real terms, yes. Reagans. The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you ever try to consider the concept of INFLATION? Could you buy a car in 2015 at the same price as the same car in 1982? And, of course, much of that increase was from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! DERP.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982. And, me boy, imagine how much more the 1982 recession would have run up the debt if reagan had not gotten people back to work, and paying taxes.
While by eliminating unemployment, Reagan spent enough to Triple the debt. By not using stimulus to lower the ue rate, he could have QUADRUPLED IT. And it would have kept growing for years and years and years.
Reagan recession was caused by monetary policy which featured 20%
interest rates. Recovery was caused when rates were cut drastically. Its 100% ignorant to pretend monetary policy did not matter.
And republicans BLOCKED every bill meant to help, and passed none of their own.
Stopping his new spending plans was good.
Worked as you and the republican congress hoped. No stimulus was gained, and the recovery was not helped. So, yes, it was good for those who do not care what happened to the American Middle Class. To most of us, however, it was un-American.
Every single republican congressman voted against every bill brought forward to help the economy.
Obama spending plans wouldn't help the economy.
So you say. The cbo disagrees. Most economists disagree. But as I said, the conservatives did not care what they did to the economy or the american workers. They simply wanted the economy to fail. And to blame the other party. Which is un-american.
and what bills did republicans bring forward to help lower unemployment and help with the slow recovery?
You should look on Reid's desk.
Typical stupid con statement. If there was a bill sent forward, you can find it on the net. Easily. So, look at the internet. And quit proving you are a con tool. Try a rational argument. Maybe even with an impartial link.
If conservatives wanted to help the unemployment problem, they would have made an effort. If they did not care, they would not have made an effort. If they made and effort, there would be a bill, and we could find it. So, me boy, again, name the bill
Or are you just going to continue with short snarky unsubstantiated posts?
The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
Why do you continue, time after time, to require me to educate you? The national debt is, in a coupleof respects, like an account. It has input like taxes. And output like spending.
If you had a brain, you would have noticed that over the years, with few exceptions, it increased greatly because people were unemployed and that payments in were way down. Happens every single time we have a recession.
So, your con talking points are fine. But bullshit, to put it technically. What economists say is more important. And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Repealing Obamacare would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Rolling back some of Obama's idiotic regulations would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% would help employment.
Remove all deductions first, and the net result would be an increase in their taxes.
Do you think the corporate published tax rate makes any difference? Do you think corporations pay the published rate? Or are you simply pushing the great conservative lie?
What is the ACTUAL tax rate, me con tool? The rates actually paid are already well under 20% for most corporations. Funny how you ignore that fact. And the paid tax rates are all that matter. As you know.
"But most large corporations -- and about a third of small corporations -- did owe corporate income taxes that year, to the tune of nearly $268 billion. For tax years 2008 through 2012, large profitable companies paid, on average, about 14% of their pretax income in U.S. corporate income taxes,"
20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes
So, another lie exposed. With 20% of US Corporations paying zero federal taxes, and every con tool, like yourself, told to go out and tell everyone who will listen that US corporations pay the highest tax rates in the world, the wrong message is out there. Because, you see, it is another LIE.
So, where is the name of the bill republicans put forward to help speed the recovery and decrease the unemployment rate? Or would you prefer to just admit that they did NOTHING?
Would Obama sign anything like that?
What is the name or number of that Republican bill you are trying to ignore?
Happens every single time we have a recession.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
In real terms, yes. Reagans. The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you ever try to consider the concept of INFLATION? Could you buy a car in 2015 at the same price as the same car in 1982? And, of course, much of that increase was from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! DERP.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982. And, me boy, imagine how much more the 1982 recession would have run up the debt if reagan had not gotten people back to work, and paying taxes.
While by eliminating unemployment, Reagan spent enough to Triple the debt. By not using stimulus to lower the ue rate, he could have QUADRUPLED IT. And it would have kept growing for years and years and years.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
In real terms, yes. Reagans.
Nope. Obama's $8.6 trillion is equivalent to $4.25 trillion in 1988.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982.
Reagan added much less to the debt and achieved much better GDP and job growth.
If only Obama had cut taxes, instead of raising them, we wouldn't be talking about this
weakest recovery ever.
Rshermr
VIP Member
The GOP National Debt was 12 trillion at the end of the last Bush fiscal year. Then you add the 2 trillion in interest on the GOP National Debt, and then you add the continuing expenses of Bush's wars including the continuing medical expenses, and Bush's unfunded increase in SS and Medicare, and all but about 3 trillion of the current GOP National Debt belongs to GOP presidents.The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
So that's why we have the weakest recovery ever, the smartest president ever had Republican predecessors.
I guess if the debt was $12 trillion higher than the day he took office, everything would be groovy.
Think about what you just said, me boy. After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history, he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT. (bold and red to try to get you to understand). And the economy responded as any thinking person would have thought.
So, yes indeed, you might try to listen to economists and stop posting conservative dogma. It is SO boring, and largely ignorant.
After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history
You never showed the spending cuts you're blaming for the jump in unemployment.
I guess your claims are dead on arrival.
Yes I did, You are lying, me con tool.
he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes
Yup, raised the top rate from 70% all the way up to 28%.
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates. But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
Do you disagree?
and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion, won the Cold War (Was there for the end, and gave no credit to every other presidents policies) and gave us massive growth in jobs and GDP.(and proved, again, that Keynesian policies work).
Obama added $8.6 trillion(Resulting from the Great Republican Recession) so far, made us weaker around the world and gave us the weakest economic recovery in history.
The gross debt increase in 2009 was huge, because of the decreased tax revenues and increased benefit payments caused by the Great Recession.
Two other large contributors to debt since 2009 are the government’s continued borrowing to fund military operations in the Middle East and increasing costs of the health system, said Linda Bilmes, an expert in national budgetary issues at Harvard University. Both of these were a result of previous administrative policies and external factors.
Rand Paul: Debt doubled under Bush, tripled under Obama
Since President Barack Obama first took office:
Number of Jobs — The economy has added 851,000 jobs since we published our last report. As of December, the number of total nonfarm jobs stands 9,265,000 higher than when Obama first took office.
- Homicides have dropped 13 percent, but gun sales have surged.
- The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
- The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama, but it is still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
- Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
- There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
- Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
- The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
That compares with the nearly 23 million jobs gained during the booming years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the fewer than 1.3 million added during President George W. Bush’s eight years, which were plagued by two recessions.
Unemployment Rate — Meanwhile the unemployment rate went down again, to 5.0 percent. It’s now 2.8 percentage points lower than it was in January 2009, when the president first took office in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Historically, the jobless rate is significantly lower than it has been most of the time since 1948. The historical median is 5.6 percent.
Long-term Unemployment — The number of long-term unemployed — those who have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer — has dropped further since our last report. The number went down to less than 2.1 million in December, which is 614,000 fewer than when the president first took office. But it is still 761,000 higher than it was in December 2007, at the start of the Great Recession.
Labor Participation Rate — The labor force participation rate, which is the portion of the civilian population that is either employed or currently looking for work, ticked upward since our last report, to 62.6 percent in December. But it is still 3.1 percentage points lower than when Obama took office.
Contrary to many of Obama’s critics, however, that decline is due mostly to factors outside the control of any president — factors such as the post-World War II baby boomers reaching retirement age. Survey data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in December show that those outside the labor force in 2014 said their reasons for not working were retirement (44 percent), illness or disability (19 percent), school attendance (18 percent) or home responsibilities (15 percent). Only 3 percent said they couldn’t find a job, or gave some other reason.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
The GOP National Debt was 12 trillion at the end of the last Bush fiscal year. Then you add the 2 trillion in interest on the GOP National Debt, and then you add the continuing expenses of Bush's wars including the continuing medical expenses, and Bush's unfunded increase in SS and Medicare, and all but about 3 trillion of the current GOP National Debt belongs to GOP presidents.The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
So that's why we have the weakest recovery ever, the smartest president ever had Republican predecessors.
I guess if the debt was $12 trillion higher than the day he took office, everything would be groovy.
Think about what you just said, me boy. After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history, he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT. (bold and red to try to get you to understand). And the economy responded as any thinking person would have thought.
So, yes indeed, you might try to listen to economists and stop posting conservative dogma. It is SO boring, and largely ignorant.
After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history
You never showed the spending cuts you're blaming for the jump in unemployment.
I guess your claims are dead on arrival.
Yes I did, You are lying, me con tool.
he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes
Yup, raised the top rate from 70% all the way up to 28%.
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates. But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
Do you disagree?
and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion, won the Cold War (Was there for the end, and gave no credit to every other presidents policies) and gave us massive growth in jobs and GDP.(and proved, again, that Keynesian policies work).
Obama added $8.6 trillion(Resulting from the Great Republican Recession) so far, made us weaker around the world and gave us the weakest economic recovery in history.
The gross debt increase in 2009 was huge, because of the decreased tax revenues and increased benefit payments caused by the Great Recession.
Two other large contributors to debt since 2009 are the government’s continued borrowing to fund military operations in the Middle East and increasing costs of the health system, said Linda Bilmes, an expert in national budgetary issues at Harvard University. Both of these were a result of previous administrative policies and external factors.
Rand Paul: Debt doubled under Bush, tripled under Obama
Since President Barack Obama first took office:
Number of Jobs — The economy has added 851,000 jobs since we published our last report. As of December, the number of total nonfarm jobs stands 9,265,000 higher than when Obama first took office.
- Homicides have dropped 13 percent, but gun sales have surged.
- The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
- The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama, but it is still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
- Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
- There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
- Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
- The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
That compares with the nearly 23 million jobs gained during the booming years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the fewer than 1.3 million added during President George W. Bush’s eight years, which were plagued by two recessions.
Unemployment Rate — Meanwhile the unemployment rate went down again, to 5.0 percent. It’s now 2.8 percentage points lower than it was in January 2009, when the president first took office in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Historically, the jobless rate is significantly lower than it has been most of the time since 1948. The historical median is 5.6 percent.
Long-term Unemployment — The number of long-term unemployed — those who have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer — has dropped further since our last report. The number went down to less than 2.1 million in December, which is 614,000 fewer than when the president first took office. But it is still 761,000 higher than it was in December 2007, at the start of the Great Recession.
Labor Participation Rate — The labor force participation rate, which is the portion of the civilian population that is either employed or currently looking for work, ticked upward since our last report, to 62.6 percent in December. But it is still 3.1 percentage points lower than when Obama took office.
Contrary to many of Obama’s critics, however, that decline is due mostly to factors outside the control of any president — factors such as the post-World War II baby boomers reaching retirement age. Survey data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in December show that those outside the labor force in 2014 said their reasons for not working were retirement (44 percent), illness or disability (19 percent), school attendance (18 percent) or home responsibilities (15 percent). Only 3 percent said they couldn’t find a job, or gave some other reason.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates.
He cut all the rates.
But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
By all means, explain further.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion,
I know, less than half of Obama's increase, in real terms.
You never showed the Reagan spending cuts that you blame for his increase in unemployment.
Why is that?
Rshermr
VIP Member
The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
Why do you continue, time after time, to require me to educate you? The national debt is, in a coupleof respects, like an account. It has input like taxes. And output like spending.
If you had a brain, you would have noticed that over the years, with few exceptions, it increased greatly because people were unemployed and that payments in were way down. Happens every single time we have a recession.
So, your con talking points are fine. But bullshit, to put it technically. What economists say is more important. And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Repealing Obamacare would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Rolling back some of Obama's idiotic regulations would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% would help employment.
Remove all deductions first, and the net result would be an increase in their taxes.
Do you think the corporate published tax rate makes any difference? Do you think corporations pay the published rate? Or are you simply pushing the great conservative lie?
What is the ACTUAL tax rate, me con tool? The rates actually paid are already well under 20% for most corporations. Funny how you ignore that fact. And the paid tax rates are all that matter. As you know.
"But most large corporations -- and about a third of small corporations -- did owe corporate income taxes that year, to the tune of nearly $268 billion. For tax years 2008 through 2012, large profitable companies paid, on average, about 14% of their pretax income in U.S. corporate income taxes,"
20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes
So, another lie exposed. With 20% of US Corporations paying zero federal taxes, and every con tool, like yourself, told to go out and tell everyone who will listen that US corporations pay the highest tax rates in the world, the wrong message is out there. Because, you see, it is another LIE.
So, where is the name of the bill republicans put forward to help speed the recovery and decrease the unemployment rate? Or would you prefer to just admit that they did NOTHING?
Would Obama sign anything like that?
What is the name or number of that Republican bill you are trying to ignore?
Happens every single time we have a recession.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
In real terms, yes. Reagans. The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you ever try to consider the concept of INFLATION? Could you buy a car in 2015 at the same price as the same car in 1982? And, of course, much of that increase was from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! DERP.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982. And, me boy, imagine how much more the 1982 recession would have run up the debt if reagan had not gotten people back to work, and paying taxes.
While by eliminating unemployment, Reagan spent enough to Triple the debt. By not using stimulus to lower the ue rate, he could have QUADRUPLED IT. And it would have kept growing for years and years and years.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
Link, please.
Because, me boy, as usual, you are full of shit. Which is normal for a con tool like you:
"Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit a small percent. When all of these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009-2017. "(Source: WSJ, Ezra Klein, Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits, January 31, 2014)
As a con tool, you took the conservative idea of adding everything that you could as his responsibility. Rational people look at things rationally. And there is a link for you to help in your education, should you be interested. My guess? your not interested.
Really, me boy. Lying is one thing, but you are too much.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982.
Reagan added much less to the debt and achieved much better GDP and job growth.
If only Obama had cut taxes, instead of raising them, we wouldn't be talking about this
weakest recovery ever.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP. Kind of how you look at your budget, say for a car. How long do you have to work to pay for a car in one year as opposed to another year.
So, how have presidents done. Obama is not yet don, but here are the numbers through 2014:
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Discussion: Republican presidents after Eisenhower have increased the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product by a total of 60%. Democratic presidents have reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP by a total of 9%.
President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.
In terms of the change in the debt to GDP ratio per year, each Republican has performed worse than the previous Republican president. George H.W. Bush increased the debt as a percentage of GDP by almost 14%, which would have put him just barely behind his son had that continued for a second term.
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Reagan tripled the national debt. So far, no one else has. But, me boy, it makes no real difference. Reagan had no recession, except the one he created, Obama inherited the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Last edited:
The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?
Why do you continue, time after time, to require me to educate you? The national debt is, in a coupleof respects, like an account. It has input like taxes. And output like spending.
If you had a brain, you would have noticed that over the years, with few exceptions, it increased greatly because people were unemployed and that payments in were way down. Happens every single time we have a recession.
So, your con talking points are fine. But bullshit, to put it technically. What economists say is more important. And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Repealing Obamacare would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Rolling back some of Obama's idiotic regulations would help employment.
The reason you say that is that you love con talking points. It is, however, untrue.
Cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% would help employment.
Remove all deductions first, and the net result would be an increase in their taxes.
Do you think the corporate published tax rate makes any difference? Do you think corporations pay the published rate? Or are you simply pushing the great conservative lie?
What is the ACTUAL tax rate, me con tool? The rates actually paid are already well under 20% for most corporations. Funny how you ignore that fact. And the paid tax rates are all that matter. As you know.
"But most large corporations -- and about a third of small corporations -- did owe corporate income taxes that year, to the tune of nearly $268 billion. For tax years 2008 through 2012, large profitable companies paid, on average, about 14% of their pretax income in U.S. corporate income taxes,"
20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes
So, another lie exposed. With 20% of US Corporations paying zero federal taxes, and every con tool, like yourself, told to go out and tell everyone who will listen that US corporations pay the highest tax rates in the world, the wrong message is out there. Because, you see, it is another LIE.
So, where is the name of the bill republicans put forward to help speed the recovery and decrease the unemployment rate? Or would you prefer to just admit that they did NOTHING?
Would Obama sign anything like that?
What is the name or number of that Republican bill you are trying to ignore?
Happens every single time we have a recession.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
In real terms, yes. Reagans. The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you ever try to consider the concept of INFLATION? Could you buy a car in 2015 at the same price as the same car in 1982? And, of course, much of that increase was from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! DERP.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982. And, me boy, imagine how much more the 1982 recession would have run up the debt if reagan had not gotten people back to work, and paying taxes.
While by eliminating unemployment, Reagan spent enough to Triple the debt. By not using stimulus to lower the ue rate, he could have QUADRUPLED IT. And it would have kept growing for years and years and years.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
Link, please.
Because, me boy, as usual, you are full of shit. Which is normal for a con tool like you:
"Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit a small percent. When all of these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009-2017. "(Source: WSJ, Ezra Klein, Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits, January 31, 2014)
As a con tool, you took the conservative idea of adding everything that you could as his responsibility. Rational people look at things rationally. And there is a link for you to help in your education, should you be interested. My guess? your not interested.
Really, me boy. Lying is one thing, but you are too much.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982.
Reagan added much less to the debt and achieved much better GDP and job growth.
If only Obama had cut taxes, instead of raising them, we wouldn't be talking about this
weakest recovery ever.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP. Kind of how you look at your budget, say for a car. How long do you have to work to pay for a car in one year as opposed to another year.
So, how have presidents done. Obama is not yet don, but here are the numbers through 2014:
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Discussion: Republican presidents after Eisenhower have increased the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product by a total of 60%. Democratic presidents have reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP by a total of 9%.
President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.
In terms of the change in the debt to GDP ratio per year, each Republican has performed worse than the previous Republican president. George H.W. Bush increased the debt as a percentage of GDP by almost 14%, which would have put him just barely behind his son had that continued for a second term.
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Reagan tripled the national debt. So far, no one else has. But, me boy, it makes no real difference. Reagan had no recession, except the one he created, Obama inherited the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP.
Okay.
Q1 1981, about 30.8% of GDP. Q1 1989, about 49.6%.
Q1 2009, about 77.4% of GDP. Q1 2016, about 105.7%.
So it increased by less than 19% of GDP under Reagan.
With a year to go, it increased by more than 28% of GDP under Obama.
Thanks for pointing out another way Obama failed.
Graph: Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Rshermr
VIP Member
The GOP National Debt was 12 trillion at the end of the last Bush fiscal year. Then you add the 2 trillion in interest on the GOP National Debt, and then you add the continuing expenses of Bush's wars including the continuing medical expenses, and Bush's unfunded increase in SS and Medicare, and all but about 3 trillion of the current GOP National Debt belongs to GOP presidents.
So that's why we have the weakest recovery ever, the smartest president ever had Republican predecessors.
I guess if the debt was $12 trillion higher than the day he took office, everything would be groovy.
Think about what you just said, me boy. After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history, he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT. (bold and red to try to get you to understand). And the economy responded as any thinking person would have thought.
So, yes indeed, you might try to listen to economists and stop posting conservative dogma. It is SO boring, and largely ignorant.
After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history
You never showed the spending cuts you're blaming for the jump in unemployment.
I guess your claims are dead on arrival.
Yes I did, You are lying, me con tool.
he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes
Yup, raised the top rate from 70% all the way up to 28%.
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates. But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
Do you disagree?
and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion, won the Cold War (Was there for the end, and gave no credit to every other presidents policies) and gave us massive growth in jobs and GDP.(and proved, again, that Keynesian policies work).
Obama added $8.6 trillion(Resulting from the Great Republican Recession) so far, made us weaker around the world and gave us the weakest economic recovery in history.
The gross debt increase in 2009 was huge, because of the decreased tax revenues and increased benefit payments caused by the Great Recession.
Two other large contributors to debt since 2009 are the government’s continued borrowing to fund military operations in the Middle East and increasing costs of the health system, said Linda Bilmes, an expert in national budgetary issues at Harvard University. Both of these were a result of previous administrative policies and external factors.
Rand Paul: Debt doubled under Bush, tripled under Obama
Since President Barack Obama first took office:
Number of Jobs — The economy has added 851,000 jobs since we published our last report. As of December, the number of total nonfarm jobs stands 9,265,000 higher than when Obama first took office.
- Homicides have dropped 13 percent, but gun sales have surged.
- The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
- The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama, but it is still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
- Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
- There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
- Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
- The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
That compares with the nearly 23 million jobs gained during the booming years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the fewer than 1.3 million added during President George W. Bush’s eight years, which were plagued by two recessions.
Unemployment Rate — Meanwhile the unemployment rate went down again, to 5.0 percent. It’s now 2.8 percentage points lower than it was in January 2009, when the president first took office in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Historically, the jobless rate is significantly lower than it has been most of the time since 1948. The historical median is 5.6 percent.
Long-term Unemployment — The number of long-term unemployed — those who have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer — has dropped further since our last report. The number went down to less than 2.1 million in December, which is 614,000 fewer than when the president first took office. But it is still 761,000 higher than it was in December 2007, at the start of the Great Recession.
Labor Participation Rate — The labor force participation rate, which is the portion of the civilian population that is either employed or currently looking for work, ticked upward since our last report, to 62.6 percent in December. But it is still 3.1 percentage points lower than when Obama took office.
Contrary to many of Obama’s critics, however, that decline is due mostly to factors outside the control of any president — factors such as the post-World War II baby boomers reaching retirement age. Survey data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in December show that those outside the labor force in 2014 said their reasons for not working were retirement (44 percent), illness or disability (19 percent), school attendance (18 percent) or home responsibilities (15 percent). Only 3 percent said they couldn’t find a job, or gave some other reason.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates.
He cut all the rates.
Yes, but primarily to the top earners.
But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
By all means, explain further.
He made them higher. Look them up.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion,
I know, less than half of Obama's increase, in real terms.
Not as a percent of the National debt. And more importantly, not as a percent of GDP.
And, it was all his. His recession. Not another presidents.
You never showed the Reagan spending cuts that you blame for his increase in unemployment.
Yes I did.
Why is that?
See above.
Where are those bills put forward to decrease the ue rate and speed up the recovery of the Great Republican Recession? You said they were on Reid's desk, but they would have been recorded. And Reid said he had none given to him.
So that's why we have the weakest recovery ever, the smartest president ever had Republican predecessors.
I guess if the debt was $12 trillion higher than the day he took office, everything would be groovy.
Think about what you just said, me boy. After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history, he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT. (bold and red to try to get you to understand). And the economy responded as any thinking person would have thought.
So, yes indeed, you might try to listen to economists and stop posting conservative dogma. It is SO boring, and largely ignorant.
After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history
You never showed the spending cuts you're blaming for the jump in unemployment.
I guess your claims are dead on arrival.
Yes I did, You are lying, me con tool.
he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes
Yup, raised the top rate from 70% all the way up to 28%.
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates. But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
Do you disagree?
and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion, won the Cold War (Was there for the end, and gave no credit to every other presidents policies) and gave us massive growth in jobs and GDP.(and proved, again, that Keynesian policies work).
Obama added $8.6 trillion(Resulting from the Great Republican Recession) so far, made us weaker around the world and gave us the weakest economic recovery in history.
The gross debt increase in 2009 was huge, because of the decreased tax revenues and increased benefit payments caused by the Great Recession.
Two other large contributors to debt since 2009 are the government’s continued borrowing to fund military operations in the Middle East and increasing costs of the health system, said Linda Bilmes, an expert in national budgetary issues at Harvard University. Both of these were a result of previous administrative policies and external factors.
Rand Paul: Debt doubled under Bush, tripled under Obama
Since President Barack Obama first took office:
Number of Jobs — The economy has added 851,000 jobs since we published our last report. As of December, the number of total nonfarm jobs stands 9,265,000 higher than when Obama first took office.
- Homicides have dropped 13 percent, but gun sales have surged.
- The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
- The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama, but it is still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
- Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
- There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
- Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
- The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
That compares with the nearly 23 million jobs gained during the booming years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the fewer than 1.3 million added during President George W. Bush’s eight years, which were plagued by two recessions.
Unemployment Rate — Meanwhile the unemployment rate went down again, to 5.0 percent. It’s now 2.8 percentage points lower than it was in January 2009, when the president first took office in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Historically, the jobless rate is significantly lower than it has been most of the time since 1948. The historical median is 5.6 percent.
Long-term Unemployment — The number of long-term unemployed — those who have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer — has dropped further since our last report. The number went down to less than 2.1 million in December, which is 614,000 fewer than when the president first took office. But it is still 761,000 higher than it was in December 2007, at the start of the Great Recession.
Labor Participation Rate — The labor force participation rate, which is the portion of the civilian population that is either employed or currently looking for work, ticked upward since our last report, to 62.6 percent in December. But it is still 3.1 percentage points lower than when Obama took office.
Contrary to many of Obama’s critics, however, that decline is due mostly to factors outside the control of any president — factors such as the post-World War II baby boomers reaching retirement age. Survey data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in December show that those outside the labor force in 2014 said their reasons for not working were retirement (44 percent), illness or disability (19 percent), school attendance (18 percent) or home responsibilities (15 percent). Only 3 percent said they couldn’t find a job, or gave some other reason.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates.
He cut all the rates.
Yes, but primarily to the top earners.
But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
By all means, explain further.
He made them higher. Look them up.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion,
I know, less than half of Obama's increase, in real terms.
Not as a percent of the National debt. And more importantly, not as a percent of GDP.
And, it was all his. His recession. Not another presidents.
You never showed the Reagan spending cuts that you blame for his increase in unemployment.
Yes I did.
Why is that?
See above.
Where are those bills put forward to decrease the ue rate and speed up the recovery of the Great Republican Recession? You said they were on Reid's desk, but they would have been recorded. And Reid said he had none given to him.
He made them higher. Look them up.
He made taxes on what go up? Specifics?
And more importantly, not as a percent of GDP.
Reagan, less than 19% of GDP, Obama, more than 28% of GDP.
You're right, that is more important.
Rshermr
VIP Member
Happens every single time we have a recession.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
In real terms, yes. Reagans. The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you ever try to consider the concept of INFLATION? Could you buy a car in 2015 at the same price as the same car in 1982? And, of course, much of that increase was from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! DERP.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982. And, me boy, imagine how much more the 1982 recession would have run up the debt if reagan had not gotten people back to work, and paying taxes.
While by eliminating unemployment, Reagan spent enough to Triple the debt. By not using stimulus to lower the ue rate, he could have QUADRUPLED IT. And it would have kept growing for years and years and years.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
Link, please.
Because, me boy, as usual, you are full of shit. Which is normal for a con tool like you:
"Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit a small percent. When all of these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009-2017. "(Source: WSJ, Ezra Klein, Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits, January 31, 2014)
As a con tool, you took the conservative idea of adding everything that you could as his responsibility. Rational people look at things rationally. And there is a link for you to help in your education, should you be interested. My guess? your not interested.
Really, me boy. Lying is one thing, but you are too much.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982.
Reagan added much less to the debt and achieved much better GDP and job growth.
If only Obama had cut taxes, instead of raising them, we wouldn't be talking about this
weakest recovery ever.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP. Kind of how you look at your budget, say for a car. How long do you have to work to pay for a car in one year as opposed to another year.
So, how have presidents done. Obama is not yet don, but here are the numbers through 2014:
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Discussion: Republican presidents after Eisenhower have increased the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product by a total of 60%. Democratic presidents have reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP by a total of 9%.
President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.
In terms of the change in the debt to GDP ratio per year, each Republican has performed worse than the previous Republican president. George H.W. Bush increased the debt as a percentage of GDP by almost 14%, which would have put him just barely behind his son had that continued for a second term.
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Reagan tripled the national debt. So far, no one else has. But, me boy, it makes no real difference. Reagan had no recession, except the one he created, Obama inherited the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP.
Okay.
Q1 1981, about 30.8% of GDP. Q1 1989, about 49.6%.
Q1 2009, about 77.4% of GDP. Q1 2016, about 105.7%.
So it increased by less than 19% of GDP under Reagan.
With a year to go, it increased by more than 28% of GDP under Obama.
Thanks for pointing out another way Obama failed.
First, dipshit, you are looking at total debt. So, for obama, you include in your graph the debt for every president up to Obama, plus Obama. Rather dishonest. Which seems to be your way.
So, the whole thing of honor and truth just is not important to you. Got it.
President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.
So, nearly half of the debt that was attributed to Obama was from the Great Recession. Who failed? Do cons ever take responsibility for anything??
Graph: Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Happens every single time we have a recession.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
In real terms, yes. Reagans. The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you ever try to consider the concept of INFLATION? Could you buy a car in 2015 at the same price as the same car in 1982? And, of course, much of that increase was from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.
Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! DERP.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982. And, me boy, imagine how much more the 1982 recession would have run up the debt if reagan had not gotten people back to work, and paying taxes.
While by eliminating unemployment, Reagan spent enough to Triple the debt. By not using stimulus to lower the ue rate, he could have QUADRUPLED IT. And it would have kept growing for years and years and years.
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
Link, please.
Because, me boy, as usual, you are full of shit. Which is normal for a con tool like you:
"Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit a small percent. When all of these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009-2017. "(Source: WSJ, Ezra Klein, Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits, January 31, 2014)
As a con tool, you took the conservative idea of adding everything that you could as his responsibility. Rational people look at things rationally. And there is a link for you to help in your education, should you be interested. My guess? your not interested.
Really, me boy. Lying is one thing, but you are too much.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982.
Reagan added much less to the debt and achieved much better GDP and job growth.
If only Obama had cut taxes, instead of raising them, we wouldn't be talking about this
weakest recovery ever.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP. Kind of how you look at your budget, say for a car. How long do you have to work to pay for a car in one year as opposed to another year.
So, how have presidents done. Obama is not yet don, but here are the numbers through 2014:
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Discussion: Republican presidents after Eisenhower have increased the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product by a total of 60%. Democratic presidents have reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP by a total of 9%.
President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.
In terms of the change in the debt to GDP ratio per year, each Republican has performed worse than the previous Republican president. George H.W. Bush increased the debt as a percentage of GDP by almost 14%, which would have put him just barely behind his son had that continued for a second term.
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Reagan tripled the national debt. So far, no one else has. But, me boy, it makes no real difference. Reagan had no recession, except the one he created, Obama inherited the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP.
Okay.
Q1 1981, about 30.8% of GDP. Q1 1989, about 49.6%.
Q1 2009, about 77.4% of GDP. Q1 2016, about 105.7%.
So it increased by less than 19% of GDP under Reagan.
With a year to go, it increased by more than 28% of GDP under Obama.
Thanks for pointing out another way Obama failed.
First, dipshit, you are looking at total debt. So, for obama, you include in your graph the debt for every president up to Obama, plus Obama. Rather dishonest. Which seems to be your way.
So, the whole thing of honor and truth just is not important to you. Got it.
President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.
So, nearly half of the debt that was attributed to Obama was from the Great Recession. Who failed? Do cons ever take responsibility for anything??
Graph: Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
First, dipshit, you are looking at total debt. So, for obama, you include in your graph the debt for every president up to Obama, plus Obama. Rather dishonest.
Hey, moron, if you subtract the debt as % of GDP in Q1 2009 from the current number, you'd see the % of GDP Obama added. Durr.
You're rather moronic.
President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high
Wow, 0.5% is relatively high? Derp.
Rshermr
VIP Member
Think about what you just said, me boy. After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history, he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT. (bold and red to try to get you to understand). And the economy responded as any thinking person would have thought.
So, yes indeed, you might try to listen to economists and stop posting conservative dogma. It is SO boring, and largely ignorant.
After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history
You never showed the spending cuts you're blaming for the jump in unemployment.
I guess your claims are dead on arrival.
Yes I did, You are lying, me con tool.
he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes
Yup, raised the top rate from 70% all the way up to 28%.
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates. But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
Do you disagree?
and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion, won the Cold War (Was there for the end, and gave no credit to every other presidents policies) and gave us massive growth in jobs and GDP.(and proved, again, that Keynesian policies work).
Obama added $8.6 trillion(Resulting from the Great Republican Recession) so far, made us weaker around the world and gave us the weakest economic recovery in history.
The gross debt increase in 2009 was huge, because of the decreased tax revenues and increased benefit payments caused by the Great Recession.
Two other large contributors to debt since 2009 are the government’s continued borrowing to fund military operations in the Middle East and increasing costs of the health system, said Linda Bilmes, an expert in national budgetary issues at Harvard University. Both of these were a result of previous administrative policies and external factors.
Rand Paul: Debt doubled under Bush, tripled under Obama
Since President Barack Obama first took office:
Number of Jobs — The economy has added 851,000 jobs since we published our last report. As of December, the number of total nonfarm jobs stands 9,265,000 higher than when Obama first took office.
- Homicides have dropped 13 percent, but gun sales have surged.
- The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
- The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama, but it is still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
- Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
- There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
- Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
- The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
That compares with the nearly 23 million jobs gained during the booming years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the fewer than 1.3 million added during President George W. Bush’s eight years, which were plagued by two recessions.
Unemployment Rate — Meanwhile the unemployment rate went down again, to 5.0 percent. It’s now 2.8 percentage points lower than it was in January 2009, when the president first took office in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Historically, the jobless rate is significantly lower than it has been most of the time since 1948. The historical median is 5.6 percent.
Long-term Unemployment — The number of long-term unemployed — those who have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer — has dropped further since our last report. The number went down to less than 2.1 million in December, which is 614,000 fewer than when the president first took office. But it is still 761,000 higher than it was in December 2007, at the start of the Great Recession.
Labor Participation Rate — The labor force participation rate, which is the portion of the civilian population that is either employed or currently looking for work, ticked upward since our last report, to 62.6 percent in December. But it is still 3.1 percentage points lower than when Obama took office.
Contrary to many of Obama’s critics, however, that decline is due mostly to factors outside the control of any president — factors such as the post-World War II baby boomers reaching retirement age. Survey data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in December show that those outside the labor force in 2014 said their reasons for not working were retirement (44 percent), illness or disability (19 percent), school attendance (18 percent) or home responsibilities (15 percent). Only 3 percent said they couldn’t find a job, or gave some other reason.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates.
He cut all the rates.
Yes, but primarily to the top earners.
But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
By all means, explain further.
He made them higher. Look them up.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion,
I know, less than half of Obama's increase, in real terms.
Not as a percent of the National debt. And more importantly, not as a percent of GDP.
And, it was all his. His recession. Not another presidents.
You never showed the Reagan spending cuts that you blame for his increase in unemployment.
Yes I did.
Why is that?
See above.
Where are those bills put forward to decrease the ue rate and speed up the recovery of the Great Republican Recession? You said they were on Reid's desk, but they would have been recorded. And Reid said he had none given to him.
He made them higher. Look them up.
He made taxes on what go up? Specifics?
"Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality
"Reagan’s tax increases
1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.
The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)
This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.
Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.
Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 "safe harbor" leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration.
1983: A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administration estimate.
1984: The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. "But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored," Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts.
Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions)."
Stephen Colbert brings up Ronald Reagan's tax-raising record in Ted Cruz interview
Now, me boy, you may be able to do some for yourself, if you are not too lazy.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?
Link, please.
Because, me boy, as usual, you are full of shit. Which is normal for a con tool like you:
"Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit a small percent. When all of these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009-2017. "(Source: WSJ, Ezra Klein, Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits, January 31, 2014)
As a con tool, you took the conservative idea of adding everything that you could as his responsibility. Rational people look at things rationally. And there is a link for you to help in your education, should you be interested. My guess? your not interested.
Really, me boy. Lying is one thing, but you are too much.
It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982.
Reagan added much less to the debt and achieved much better GDP and job growth.
If only Obama had cut taxes, instead of raising them, we wouldn't be talking about this
weakest recovery ever.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP. Kind of how you look at your budget, say for a car. How long do you have to work to pay for a car in one year as opposed to another year.
So, how have presidents done. Obama is not yet don, but here are the numbers through 2014:
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Discussion: Republican presidents after Eisenhower have increased the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product by a total of 60%. Democratic presidents have reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP by a total of 9%.
President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.
In terms of the change in the debt to GDP ratio per year, each Republican has performed worse than the previous Republican president. George H.W. Bush increased the debt as a percentage of GDP by almost 14%, which would have put him just barely behind his son had that continued for a second term.
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President
Reagan tripled the national debt. So far, no one else has. But, me boy, it makes no real difference. Reagan had no recession, except the one he created, Obama inherited the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP.
Okay.
Q1 1981, about 30.8% of GDP. Q1 1989, about 49.6%.
Q1 2009, about 77.4% of GDP. Q1 2016, about 105.7%.
So it increased by less than 19% of GDP under Reagan.
With a year to go, it increased by more than 28% of GDP under Obama.
Thanks for pointing out another way Obama failed.
First, dipshit, you are looking at total debt. So, for obama, you include in your graph the debt for every president up to Obama, plus Obama. Rather dishonest. Which seems to be your way.
So, the whole thing of honor and truth just is not important to you. Got it.
President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.
So, nearly half of the debt that was attributed to Obama was from the Great Recession. Who failed? Do cons ever take responsibility for anything??
Graph: Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
First, dipshit, you are looking at total debt. So, for obama, you include in your graph the debt for every president up to Obama, plus Obama. Rather dishonest.
Hey, moron, if you subtract the debt as % of GDP in Q1 2009 from the current number, you'd see the % of GDP Obama added. Durr.
You're rather moronic.
President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high
Wow, 0.5% is relatively high? Derp.
what a surprise that a socialist president produces a very slow economy!
Here's how Bill Clinton put it:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”
After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history
You never showed the spending cuts you're blaming for the jump in unemployment.
I guess your claims are dead on arrival.
Yes I did, You are lying, me con tool.
he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes
Yup, raised the top rate from 70% all the way up to 28%.
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates. But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
Do you disagree?
and TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion, won the Cold War (Was there for the end, and gave no credit to every other presidents policies) and gave us massive growth in jobs and GDP.(and proved, again, that Keynesian policies work).
Obama added $8.6 trillion(Resulting from the Great Republican Recession) so far, made us weaker around the world and gave us the weakest economic recovery in history.
The gross debt increase in 2009 was huge, because of the decreased tax revenues and increased benefit payments caused by the Great Recession.
Two other large contributors to debt since 2009 are the government’s continued borrowing to fund military operations in the Middle East and increasing costs of the health system, said Linda Bilmes, an expert in national budgetary issues at Harvard University. Both of these were a result of previous administrative policies and external factors.
Rand Paul: Debt doubled under Bush, tripled under Obama
Since President Barack Obama first took office:
Number of Jobs — The economy has added 851,000 jobs since we published our last report. As of December, the number of total nonfarm jobs stands 9,265,000 higher than when Obama first took office.
- Homicides have dropped 13 percent, but gun sales have surged.
- The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
- The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama, but it is still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
- Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
- There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
- Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
- The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
That compares with the nearly 23 million jobs gained during the booming years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the fewer than 1.3 million added during President George W. Bush’s eight years, which were plagued by two recessions.
Unemployment Rate — Meanwhile the unemployment rate went down again, to 5.0 percent. It’s now 2.8 percentage points lower than it was in January 2009, when the president first took office in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Historically, the jobless rate is significantly lower than it has been most of the time since 1948. The historical median is 5.6 percent.
Long-term Unemployment — The number of long-term unemployed — those who have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer — has dropped further since our last report. The number went down to less than 2.1 million in December, which is 614,000 fewer than when the president first took office. But it is still 761,000 higher than it was in December 2007, at the start of the Great Recession.
Labor Participation Rate — The labor force participation rate, which is the portion of the civilian population that is either employed or currently looking for work, ticked upward since our last report, to 62.6 percent in December. But it is still 3.1 percentage points lower than when Obama took office.
Contrary to many of Obama’s critics, however, that decline is due mostly to factors outside the control of any president — factors such as the post-World War II baby boomers reaching retirement age. Survey data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in December show that those outside the labor force in 2014 said their reasons for not working were retirement (44 percent), illness or disability (19 percent), school attendance (18 percent) or home responsibilities (15 percent). Only 3 percent said they couldn’t find a job, or gave some other reason.
Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates.
He cut all the rates.
Yes, but primarily to the top earners.
But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.
By all means, explain further.
He made them higher. Look them up.
Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion,
I know, less than half of Obama's increase, in real terms.
Not as a percent of the National debt. And more importantly, not as a percent of GDP.
And, it was all his. His recession. Not another presidents.
You never showed the Reagan spending cuts that you blame for his increase in unemployment.
Yes I did.
Why is that?
See above.
Where are those bills put forward to decrease the ue rate and speed up the recovery of the Great Republican Recession? You said they were on Reid's desk, but they would have been recorded. And Reid said he had none given to him.
He made them higher. Look them up.
He made taxes on what go up? Specifics?
"Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality
"Reagan’s tax increases
1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.
The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)
This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.
Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.
Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 "safe harbor" leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration.
1983: A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administration estimate.
1984: The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. "But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored," Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts.
Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions)."
Stephen Colbert brings up Ronald Reagan's tax-raising record in Ted Cruz interview
Now, me boy, you may be able to do some for yourself, if you are not too lazy.
The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history,"
And after the 1982 "tax increase" 1983 tax rates were lower than 1982 tax rates.
A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes
Yeah, that was awful! The payroll taxes went up from 5.4% to 5.7%, a year earlier, 1984 instead of 1985.
And they went up to 6.06% in 1988 and then to 6.2% in 1990, as scheduled before Reagan.
Social Security History
Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,506
- 2,250
Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 184
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 7
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 119
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 373
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-