Economics 101

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.

Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?

 

[Rshermr]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

You cut it off for 2015 only.

Q1 2016.

They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!

Here's from Q1 2013.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Your stupidity must be very painful.

 

[Rshermr]

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.
Did raising revenue requite higher federal tax rates?? Try to read the article, dipshit. I even copied the section about the 1982 tax increase. Apparently it is to complex for you!?!?!?!?!?
You are questioning Alan Simpson. Who was a huge supporter of Supply Side, and Trickle Down. Notice I said was. Most have left that ship, but not all.

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.
And your point is?? There were 11 tax increases in all. Not all were huge. But all brought in Revenue.

Social Security History

 

[Rshermr]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

You cut it off for 2015 only.

Q1 2016.

They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!

Here's from Q1 2013.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Your stupidity must be very painful.
I am sure you feel no pain.

So, have you completely given up on that bill that republicans were supposed to provide to help the recovery??? If you had integrity you would admit there was none. But perhaps you do not.

I

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.
Did raising revenue requite higher federal tax rates?? Try to read the article, dipshit. I even copied the section about the 1982 tax increase. Apparently it is to complex for you!?!?!?!?!?
You are questioning Alan Simpson. Who was a huge supporter of Supply Side, and Trickle Down. Notice I said was. Most have left that ship, but not all.

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.
And your point is?? There were 11 tax increases in all. Not all were huge. But all brought in Revenue.

Social Security History

Did raising revenue requite higher federal tax rates??

Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.

The Biggest Tax Increase in History

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

You cut it off for 2015 only.

Q1 2016.

They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!

Here's from Q1 2013.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Your stupidity must be very painful.
I am sure you feel no pain.

So, have you completely given up on that bill that republicans were supposed to provide to help the recovery??? If you had integrity you would admit there was none. But perhaps you do not.

I

Your stupidity does cause me pain, but I'll get over it.

Did you ever show that Reagan cut spending and that caused unemployment to top 10%?
Or have you given up?

 

[Indeependent]

Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.

Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?

A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

You cut it off for 2015 only.

Q1 2016.

They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!

Here's from Q1 2013.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Your stupidity must be very painful.
I am sure you feel no pain.

So, have you completely given up on that bill that republicans were supposed to provide to help the recovery??? If you had integrity you would admit there was none. But perhaps you do not.

I

House Speaker John Boehner R-OH Briefing | Video | C-SPAN.org

At about the 12 minute mark. 46 jobs bills.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.

Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?

A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.

You think I said that in some post here?

 

[Indeependent]

Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.

Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?

A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.

You think I said that in some post here?

I believe your stance is complete Market Freedom with zero government intervention.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.

Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?

A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.

You think I said that in some post here?

I believe your stance is complete Market Freedom with zero government intervention.

Cool story.
Let me know when you find the post where I disagreed with Friedman.

 

[Indeependent]

Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.

Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?

A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.

You think I said that in some post here?

I believe your stance is complete Market Freedom with zero government intervention.

Cool story.
Let me know when you find the post where I disagreed with Friedman.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman...Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

 

[P@triot]

Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?

A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.

You think I said that in some post here?

I believe your stance is complete Market Freedom with zero government intervention.

Cool story.
Let me know when you find the post where I disagreed with Friedman.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman...Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

Nice straw man. Freidman made no such case. You have no leg to stand on because what you advocate for is illegal. This is as stupid as a bank robber trying to make a case for why we need armed-robbery.

 

[Indeependent]

A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.

You think I said that in some post here?

I believe your stance is complete Market Freedom with zero government intervention.

Cool story.
Let me know when you find the post where I disagreed with Friedman.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman...Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

Nice straw man. Freidman made no such case. You have no leg to stand on because what you advocate for is illegal. This is as stupid as a bank robber trying to make a case for why we need armed-robbery.

Turn off your selective hearing and watch the video again.

 

[Rshermr]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

You cut it off for 2015 only.

Q1 2016.

They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!

Here's from Q1 2013.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Your stupidity must be very painful.
I am sure you feel no pain.

So, have you completely given up on that bill that republicans were supposed to provide to help the recovery??? If you had integrity you would admit there was none. But perhaps you do not.

I

House Speaker John Boehner R-OH Briefing | Video | C-SPAN.org

At about the 12 minute mark. 46 jobs bills.

Name a job bill, me boy. Because he did not. You are lying again. And I do not appreciate listening to the dude say nothing about any specific jobs bill.

 

[Rshermr]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

You cut it off for 2015 only.

Q1 2016.

They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!

Here's from Q1 2013.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Your stupidity must be very painful.
I am sure you feel no pain.

So, have you completely given up on that bill that republicans were supposed to provide to help the recovery??? If you had integrity you would admit there was none. But perhaps you do not.

I

House Speaker John Boehner R-OH Briefing | Video | C-SPAN.org

At about the 12 minute mark. 46 jobs bills.

Here is the thing. This is not your fathers republican party. We may think we elect congress to work for us, but in fact. they work for themselves. And the folks that pay them. The wealthy. And no one else.

"If Republicans take the House as anticipated on election night, voters can expect to hear the customary talk about coming together with Democrats for the good of the country.

President Barack Obama inevitably will extend a hand across the aisle as well'

But that’s Tuesday. Right now, the tone is a lot different — with Republicans pledging to embrace an agenda for the next two years that sounds a lot like their agenda for the past two: Block Obama at all costs."
Read more: The GOP's no-compromise pledge

On the eve of Obama's inauguration in January of 2008, before he even took office, a meeting of republican political power brokers met and set an agenda in place to block Obama completely on all "major" legislation. And that includes all efforts to help the economy. Any Obama, or Democratic Party legislation was planned to be OBSTRUCTED. Every single bill.
In fact, in every single case, on health care and on stimulus for the economy, republican congressmen did not need to consider the legislation. They were pledged, before Obama even took office, to vote no. And, in fact, they did. And, by doing so, there was NO chance any piece of legislation could go forward from the time Kennedy died, and there was.
So, the founding fathers idea of a congress that worked for the populace has been destroyed by REPUBLICAN leadership. Meanwhile, they planned going forward to criticize the president for not passing legislation.
"WASHINGTON — Before the health care fight, before the economicstimulus package, before President Obama even took office, SenatorMitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation
In the process, Mr. McConnell, 68, a Kentuckian more at home plotting tactics in the cloakroom than writing legislation in a committee room or exhorting crowds on the campaign trail, has come to embody a kind of oppositional politics that critics say has left voters cynical about Washington, the Senate all but dysfunctional and the Republican Party without a positive agenda or message.
But in the short run at least, his approach has worked. For more than a year, he pleaded and cajoled to keep his caucus in line. He deployed poll data. He warned against the lure of the short-term attention to be gained by going bipartisan, and linked Republican gains in November to showing voters they could hold the line against big government.
On the major issues — not just health care, but financial regulation and the economic stimulus package, among others — Mr. McConnell has held Republican defections to somewhere between minimal and nonexistent, allowing him to slow the Democratic agenda if not defeat aspects of it. He has helped energize the Republican base, expose divisions among Democrats and turn the health care fight into a test of the Democrats’ ability to govern.
“It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,” Mr. McConnell said about the health legislation in an interview, suggesting that even minimal Republican support could sway the public. “It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t.”

Mr. McConnell said the unity was essential in dealing with Democrats on “things like the budget, national security and then ultimately, obviously, health care.”
Still, he said, his party had offered Democrats a chance for a deal on health care but blamed them as being inflexible. Democrats and the White House heavily courted Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who voted for an early version of the bill but later broke with Democrats. Democratic leaders, including the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said they did not think Republicans were ever serious about trying to strike a deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, me boy, there you go. This republican meeting, and the foundation of the "Party of NO" was formally constructed in January of 2008. And people have suffered, day after day, week after week, as republicans blocked any legislation to get the unemployment rate under control. Which, any way you look at it, is at least anti-american.

And, explains why you can find NO republican jobs legislation bills. None, me boy.
Isn't that odd???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?

A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.

You think I said that in some post here?

I believe your stance is complete Market Freedom with zero government intervention.

Cool story.
Let me know when you find the post where I disagreed with Friedman.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman...Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman

Were you lying when you said I disagreed with Friedman, or just confused?

Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.

I've never done that.

Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

At what time in your video does he do that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

You cut it off for 2015 only.

Q1 2016.

They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!

Here's from Q1 2013.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Your stupidity must be very painful.
I am sure you feel no pain.

So, have you completely given up on that bill that republicans were supposed to provide to help the recovery??? If you had integrity you would admit there was none. But perhaps you do not.

I

House Speaker John Boehner R-OH Briefing | Video | C-SPAN.org

At about the 12 minute mark. 46 jobs bills.

Name a job bill, me boy. Because he did not. You are lying again. And I do not appreciate listening to the dude say nothing about any specific jobs bill.

I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?

The only jobs bill the government should pass is a tax cut/deregulation bill.

All the make work, job creating shit is a waste of money.

And the "me boy" talk makes you sound like a gay pirate. Are you a gay pirate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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
.That, dipshit, was not what I was getting at. Instead of showing total debt, you need to break it down to the change in debt.
In addition, an honest player would show what each president is responsible for. Which I know you are not honest enough to do. So, dipshit, yes. You are 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?

You cut it off for 2015 only. They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that. The information was there. Could you be ignoring it??
And .5 is not for an year. Rather, for 1 quarter. For the year, it was about 2%. If republicans would bring forward a helpful bill, or support the presidents, it could well be higher.
You know, like dems did for your hero, Reagan.
Really, dipshit. Does it hurt to be that dumb?

You cut it off for 2015 only.

Q1 2016.

They were projecting from late 2013. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!

Here's from Q1 2013.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Your stupidity must be very painful.
I am sure you feel no pain.

So, have you completely given up on that bill that republicans were supposed to provide to help the recovery??? If you had integrity you would admit there was none. But perhaps you do not.

I

House Speaker John Boehner R-OH Briefing | Video | C-SPAN.org

At about the 12 minute mark. 46 jobs bills.

Here is the thing. This is not your fathers republican party. We may think we elect congress to work for us, but in fact. they work for themselves. And the folks that pay them. The wealthy. And no one else.

"If Republicans take the House as anticipated on election night, voters can expect to hear the customary talk about coming together with Democrats for the good of the country.

President Barack Obama inevitably will extend a hand across the aisle as well'

But that’s Tuesday. Right now, the tone is a lot different — with Republicans pledging to embrace an agenda for the next two years that sounds a lot like their agenda for the past two: Block Obama at all costs."
Read more: The GOP's no-compromise pledge

On the eve of Obama's inauguration in January of 2008, before he even took office, a meeting of republican political power brokers met and set an agenda in place to block Obama completely on all "major" legislation. And that includes all efforts to help the economy. Any Obama, or Democratic Party legislation was planned to be OBSTRUCTED. Every single bill.
In fact, in every single case, on health care and on stimulus for the economy, republican congressmen did not need to consider the legislation. They were pledged, before Obama even took office, to vote no. And, in fact, they did. And, by doing so, there was NO chance any piece of legislation could go forward from the time Kennedy died, and there was.
So, the founding fathers idea of a congress that worked for the populace has been destroyed by REPUBLICAN leadership. Meanwhile, they planned going forward to criticize the president for not passing legislation.
"WASHINGTON — Before the health care fight, before the economicstimulus package, before President Obama even took office, SenatorMitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation
In the process, Mr. McConnell, 68, a Kentuckian more at home plotting tactics in the cloakroom than writing legislation in a committee room or exhorting crowds on the campaign trail, has come to embody a kind of oppositional politics that critics say has left voters cynical about Washington, the Senate all but dysfunctional and the Republican Party without a positive agenda or message.
But in the short run at least, his approach has worked. For more than a year, he pleaded and cajoled to keep his caucus in line. He deployed poll data. He warned against the lure of the short-term attention to be gained by going bipartisan, and linked Republican gains in November to showing voters they could hold the line against big government.
On the major issues — not just health care, but financial regulation and the economic stimulus package, among others — Mr. McConnell has held Republican defections to somewhere between minimal and nonexistent, allowing him to slow the Democratic agenda if not defeat aspects of it. He has helped energize the Republican base, expose divisions among Democrats and turn the health care fight into a test of the Democrats’ ability to govern.
“It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,” Mr. McConnell said about the health legislation in an interview, suggesting that even minimal Republican support could sway the public. “It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t.”

Mr. McConnell said the unity was essential in dealing with Democrats on “things like the budget, national security and then ultimately, obviously, health care.”
Still, he said, his party had offered Democrats a chance for a deal on health care but blamed them as being inflexible. Democrats and the White House heavily courted Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who voted for an early version of the bill but later broke with Democrats. Democratic leaders, including the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said they did not think Republicans were ever serious about trying to strike a deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, me boy, there you go. This republican meeting, and the foundation of the "Party of NO" was formally constructed in January of 2008. And people have suffered, day after day, week after week, as republicans blocked any legislation to get the unemployment rate under control. Which, any way you look at it, is at least anti-american.

And, explains why you can find NO republican jobs legislation bills. None, me boy.
Isn't that odd???

On the eve of Obama's inauguration in January of 2008, before he even took office, a meeting of republican political power brokers met and set an agenda in place to block Obama completely on all "major" legislation. And that includes all efforts to help the economy. Any Obama, or Democratic Party legislation was planned to be OBSTRUCTED. Every single bill.

And a good thing too. Otherwise we'd be talking about $12 trillion in Obama debt, instead of only $8.6 trillion.