Hope & Change Update: 200,000 small businesses disappeared between 2008 and 2010

[OohPooPahDoo]

Reagan started his first term with 7's unemployment
Reagan ended his first term with 7's unemployment.
Obama started his first term with 8's unemployment
Obama will likely end his first term with 8's unemployment.


Looks to me like Obama did just as well in his first term as Reagan did in his. Not to mention unemployment peaked much higher in Reagans first term than in Obama's. The Republican party is awfully proud of Reagan, aren't they? Double standards, perhaps?

Reagan entered office with a 7.5 percent Unemployment figure, which continued to rise for the next two years, peaking at 10.8 percent. In July of his third year (which is where Obama is now), Unemployment was back to 7.5 percent.

When Reagan was sworn in for his second term, Unemployment was 7.3 percent.

Link: data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Reagan had better GDP growth

and did not promote anti-business very un-american ideas

Plus, people trusted him more to do the right thing

Reagan increased the earned income tax credit so that more wealth would be redistributed from the wealthy to the poor.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Reagan started his first term with 7's unemployment
Reagan ended his first term with 7's unemployment.
Obama started his first term with 8's unemployment
Obama will likely end his first term with 8's unemployment.


Looks to me like Obama did just as well in his first term as Reagan did in his. Not to mention unemployment peaked much higher in Reagans first term than in Obama's. The Republican party is awfully proud of Reagan, aren't they? Double standards, perhaps?

Reagan entered office with a 7.5 percent Unemployment figure, which continued to rise for the next two years, peaking at 10.8 percent. In July of his third year (which is where Obama is now), Unemployment was back to 7.5 percent.

When Reagan was sworn in for his second term, Unemployment was 7.3 percent.

Link: data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Reagan had better GDP growth

and did not promote anti-business very un-american ideas

Plus, people trusted him more to do the right thing


To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen

" Papa Obama, I knew Reagan
and Papa Obama, you are no Reagan "

He had better nominal GDP growth. Real GDP was negative for much of Reagan's first term.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Actually

it was more in line with trying to get a flat tax or
negative income tax or at least approach that concept

But with the Left, good ideas that limit gov't power will never get passed.

Why not to offset the burden of social security taxes and to maintain an incentive to work
The EIC is capped by the FICA tax- so the person never gets more than what they put in
There is no redistribution

The left is bad with math- no wonder Papa Obama spends so much

Don't they teach you anything in Papa Obama Truth Goon Squad camp?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll admit that Reagan wasn't as good as conservatives try to push him off as, but he did make us the undisputed military super power we're today. Just imagine a world that still had the USSR? Sure, you can say that it would of fallen by now, but under Reagan it did. There's a difference between could and did.

Reagan granted Amnesty to millions. He's as bad as Obama on this issue....The only reason outside of him defeating the USSR is his stances on social issues for the staunch conservative support.

I think Clinton was likely the best president of the past 20 years with all his warts. Sure, he gave china the missile tech and was impeached, but his economy was great.

I think we can thank Newt Gingrich for keeping Clinton in check on social issues that would cloud my opinion of him more.

When you consider everything, Obama couldn't wipe the crap off of Clintons shoes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Actually

it was more in line with trying to get a flat tax or
negative income tax

Why not to offset the burden of social security taxes and to maintain an incentive to work

For real? LOL! Why not call it "an incentive to work" when its a Republican doing it, and "stealing people's money to give to the unproductive" when its a Democrat doing it?

The EIC is capped by the FICA tax- so the person never gets more than what they put in

That's not even true. Its a refundable credit, and EIC is only capped by FICA if you're single and have no dependent children.

But hey - truth - who cares, right? Reagan is an infallible genius and Democrats are commies for supporting the exact same wealth redistribution program he supported.

 

[hortysir]

A forum post with a link to a FoxNews article with no supporting links, Neo?

C'mon man.....

(BTW, the data stops in 2010)

The Lemmings will never swallow that pill.

I've searched and searched and can't find the Census data supporting the claim

 

[Neotrotsky]

Actually

it was more in line with trying to get a flat tax or
negative income tax

Why not to offset the burden of social security taxes and to maintain an incentive to work

For real? LOL! Why not call it "an incentive to work" when its a Republican doing it, and "stealing people's money to give to the unproductive" when its a Democrat doing it?

The EIC is capped by the FICA tax- so the person never gets more than what they put in

That's not even true. Its a refundable credit, and EIC is only capped by FICA if you're single and have no dependent children.

But hey - truth - who cares, right? Reagan is an infallible genius and Democrats are commies for supporting the exact same wealth redistribution program he supported.

Read much
What part of ...

The EIC is capped by the FICA tax- so the person never gets more than what they put in
There is no redistribution​

Boy, the Papa Obama Truth Goon Squad should throw you back in the hopper

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'll admit that Reagan wasn't as good as conservatives try to push him off as, but he did make us the undisputed military super power we're today. Just imagine a world that still had the USSR? Sure, you can say that it would of fallen by now, but under Reagan it did. There's a difference between could and did.

Actually the USSR fell while Bush I was in office. But hey, facts, who cares?

Reagan had very little to do with it. Same with Bush. Had more to do with the Soviet people wanting change.

 

[Neotrotsky]

A forum post with a link to a FoxNews article with no supporting links, Neo?

C'mon man.....

(BTW, the data stops in 2010)

The Lemmings will never swallow that pill.

I've searched and searched and kind find the Census data supporting the claim

I fixed the link
here it is ...

Oh the lemmings will

I said we could factor it down to say 140,000 if they want to take out Bush
It started in March of 2008

I say run with the 140,000 - I can hear it now "Papa Obama only lost 140,000 businesses "

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll admit that Reagan wasn't as good as conservatives try to push him off as, but he did make us the undisputed military super power we're today. Just imagine a world that still had the USSR? Sure, you can say that it would of fallen by now, but under Reagan it did. There's a difference between could and did.

Actually the USSR fell while Bush I was in office. But hey, facts, who cares?

Reagan had very little to do with it. Same with Bush. Had more to do with the Soviet people wanting change.

Sure did(1991), but Reagan sent them over the edge with the military build up and they couldn't afford to keep up. You're right about the people wanting charge as they played a large part...Many things came together to lead to the collapse. Maybe I'm being too simple when decribing it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Comrades,

we must speak on anything but the economy

We must stay focused on the real issues

How Romney spends his money
not how Papa Obama spends taxpayer's money

I thought businesses were 100% responsible for their success or failure.

Did that change?

Seriously? Try harder dude. We know you're not that stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Comrades,

we must speak on anything but the economy

We must stay focused on the real issues

How Romney spends his money
not how Papa Obama spends taxpayer's money

All you people want to talk about are nonsense like Fast and Furious and fake Obama quotes.

 

[Neotrotsky]

You mean real Papa Obama quotes that the Left and the MSM try to claim
he meant something else

yeah those

 

[ScienceRocks]

Comrades,

we must speak on anything but the economy

We must stay focused on the real issues

How Romney spends his money
not how Papa Obama spends taxpayer's money

All you people want to talk about are nonsense like Fast and Furious and fake Obama quotes.

Why shouldn't we talk about Fast and Furious? 2 border guards and 300 Mexican nationals dead from it. Unless justice is now dead.

 

[Moonglow]

Comrades,

we must speak on anything but the economy

We must stay focused on the real issues

How Romney spends his money
not how Papa Obama spends taxpayer's money

Double speak, you just can't even concentrate on the OP message.
Hey , Bush was president in 2008. He is a loser if Obama is a loser.

 

[P@triot]

Just imagine if Papa Obama gets a second term

how worse things will be....

Well we already know the answer to that - it was exposed when he told Medvedev to tell Putin he just needs space until he can get re-elected, and then he will give Putin everything he wants.

Sad that he feels he needs to dupe the American people to get elected. Why not just do what you are supposed to do and tell the American people what your plans are and then allow them to choose whether it's what they want for America?

 

[Moonglow]

foreign diplomacy is not usually based on a mandate from the masses.

 

[hortysir]

A forum post with a link to a FoxNews article with no supporting links, Neo?

C'mon man.....

(BTW, the data stops in 2010)

The Lemmings will never swallow that pill.

I've searched and searched and kind find the Census data supporting the claim

I fixed the link
here it is ...

Oh the lemmings will

I said we could factor it down to say 140,000 if they want to take out Bush
It started in March of 2008

I say run with the 140,000 - I can hear it now "Papa Obama only lost 140,000 businesses "

I found the link just fine.

That's how I knew it was a link to another forum's OP.
That forum post links you to a FoxNews article that claims there is data but does nothing to bring it forward.

The article also admits that the data stops in 2010, so it only covers half of the time period it claims in the title.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Actually

it was more in line with trying to get a flat tax or
negative income tax

Why not to offset the burden of social security taxes and to maintain an incentive to work

For real? LOL! Why not call it "an incentive to work" when its a Republican doing it, and "stealing people's money to give to the unproductive" when its a Democrat doing it?

The EIC is capped by the FICA tax- so the person never gets more than what they put in

That's not even true. Its a refundable credit, and EIC is only capped by FICA if you're single and have no dependent children.

But hey - truth - who cares, right? Reagan is an infallible genius and Democrats are commies for supporting the exact same wealth redistribution program he supported.

While I have no doubt you are an expert on one aspect of this subject
and the BIG font make a good case, sadly you are still wrong

Any refundable portion you "refer" to is due things like the Child Tax Credit. Papa Obama's pork bill credit, or changes that were after Reagan.

I know I can't say it as well or as in such BIG font as you
but you are still wrong

sorry that is just the way it is


Please show me the tax code or examples where this thing exists
Perhaps if Papa Obama ruins the economy enough or taxes me enough
we may need it

Strange, the gov't takes away enough money for a person to live
and then gives some back to them

funny how that works

 

[Neotrotsky]

A forum post with a link to a FoxNews article with no supporting links, Neo?

C'mon man.....

(BTW, the data stops in 2010)

The Lemmings will never swallow that pill.

I've searched and searched and kind find the Census data supporting the claim

I fixed the link
here it is ...

Oh the lemmings will

I said we could factor it down to say 140,000 if they want to take out Bush
It started in March of 2008

I say run with the 140,000 - I can hear it now "Papa Obama only lost 140,000 businesses "

I found the link just fine.

That's how I knew it was a link to another forum's OP.
That forum post links you to a FoxNews article that claims there is data but does nothing to bring it forward.

The article also admits that the data stops in 2010, so it only covers half of the time period it claims in the title.

Sadly,

the way things have been going in this economy
the numbers are hardly, unbelievable