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.
There is no question that Obama is owned by Wall Street and the banks.We sat around for years with our eyes closed and allowed congress and the presidents to put a program in place to enrich themselves and they friends. Believe me if Obama really has 1 billion in campaign money he didn't get it in any of the communities he organized. He got it from some really rich democrats and wall street typed who stand to gain from the program. We stand to lose. Replace everybody.
Wait a minute platehead. You make two false assumptions and then you build a case on them. Communism wasn't built on optimism. It was built at the point of a gun by fanatic criminals. That takes care of your point #2 that trickle down economics is "similar" to communism because it is based on optimism. If any failed economic plan was based on "optimism" it was the hope/change scam of the Obama administration. How did that work out?
What's funny about this. Republicans have recently said, "If you take every cents from the top 10% it won't be enough to run the country for a year".
Think about that.
If every cent doesn't work, WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THEIR SCRAPS WOULD???????????
And they insist they have "common sense". Hilarious!
Do any of the liberals in here dispute these facts:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.
Do any of the liberals in here dispute these facts:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.
It's funny how you guys keep pointing to events that happen and claim they are due to trickle down, yet you never actually show how trickle down caused those events.
In the 80s, there were a ton of great John Hughes movies too. Clearly those wouldn't have happened without trickle down.
Thanks for admitting it.Fine then, you are right.
Reagan took over a economy in ruins, growing at a pace of 1.6% annually, implemented his economic policies and presided over an economic boom that last the entirety of his administration and it has nothing to do with him or his policies.
What's funny about this. Republicans have recently said, "If you take every cents from the top 10% it won't be enough to run the country for a year".
Think about that.
If every cent doesn't work, WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THEIR SCRAPS WOULD???????????
And they insist they have "common sense". Hilarious!
Do you dispute any of these facts? Where are the results from this president's numerous legislative accomplishments?!?!?
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.
Fine then, you are right. [\QUOTE]
Thanks for admitting it.
Reagan took over a economy in ruins, growing at a pace of 1.6% annually, implemented his economic policies and presided over an economic boom that last the entirety of his administration and it has nothing to do with him or his policies.
Clinton did the exact same thing, yet any conservative will tell you that the expansion of the 90s had nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with the GOP in Congress and dot.com explosion.
So again, if you want to claim your Messiah Reagan single handedly created the expansion of the 80s, that's fine. Just prove it. Stop showing what happened, and start showing how he made it happen.
So let me make sure I am understanding you correctly. None of the economic growth that occurred during the 80's has anything to do with Reagan. Well then I guess we can say the same about Clinton?
Liberals always point to the very fact Clinton held office during a time of economic growth as proof positive that he was responsible for it.
What is your alternative explanation for the prolonged growth and economic prosperity that occurred under Reagan's watch?
What's funny about this. Republicans have recently said, "If you take every cents from the top 10% it won't be enough to run the country for a year".
Think about that.
If every cent doesn't work, WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THEIR SCRAPS WOULD???????????
And they insist they have "common sense". Hilarious!
Do you dispute any of these facts? Where are the results from this president's numerous legislative accomplishments?!?!?
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.
Oh please. You mention 1950. When was Eisenhower in office? The last Republican president to leave office with a balanced budget. Of course, his taxes were more than 90% on the wealthiest Americans. Oops.
Listening right wingers talk economics is like listening to right wingers talk science. Or civil rights. Or music. Or art. Or literature. Or education. You might as well be listening to a dog bark for all the sense they make.
Where did I mention Eisenhower in that quote. The answer is nowhere.
What is your alternative explanation for the prolonged growth and economic prosperity that occurred under Reagan's watch?
What is your alternative explanation for the prolonged growth and economic prosperity that occurred under Reagan's watch?
Simple, deficit spending. Reagan tripled the national debt during his presidency. That money was injected into the economy which would explain the rise in GDP.
Of course, I would still not say that resulted in all boats rising, which clearly didn't happen. Minimum wage was never raised under Reagan. The number living in poverty went up by a couple million. Share of total income for the bottom earners fell as a percentage of the total, and rose for those at the top.
Just because we had a good economy does NOT in any way prove that "trickle down" worked.
