Obama looks so small compared to this great man

[rightwinger]

It wasn't that Obama could not pronounce the word correctly, he was just not familiar with the word, and had no idea what a corpsman is. Mispronunciation is no big deal, not knowing is something entirely different

Why don't you explain what a corpse-man is and why a President should be expected to know it?

The commander and chief should know what a corpsman is idiot. Even if he didn't learn it growing up with all his liberal whack job role models

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQZlw3LCCaQ]USN Corpsman Tribute-Marines Death Cheaters [HD] - YouTube[/ame]

LOL.....sure

Very few Americans know what a corpsman is

It is not a responsibility of CIC

 

[Jroc]

Why don't you explain what a corpse-man is and why a President should be expected to know it?

The commander and chief should know what a corpsman is idiot. Even if he didn't learn it growing up with all his liberal whack job role models

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQZlw3LCCaQ]USN Corpsman Tribute-Marines Death Cheaters [HD] - YouTube[/ame]

LOL.....sure

Very few Americans know what a corpsman is

It is not a responsibility of CIC

You mean very few liberals, Real Americans know what a corpsmen is and what they do

 

[Jroc]

which has nothing to do with his point.

I thought his point was that there was a myth created to make it seem as if a unpopular man was popular. The margin of victory might reveal to some that he was popular prior to the creation of the myth, fabricated or not.

The 70's were by any measure, a pretty dismal decade and politics was included in this.

Hairstyles, music, cars, clothes, economy, inflation, leadership, corruption, cynicism and division. The division was the worst for me. Everybody was hating everybody else. Coincidentally, division is what the Big 0 exhorts every day.

Reagan refused to be a part of this. He said and believed that we are one people with one role to play in the world. America, in his view, was a land of great promise populated by great people with a great destiny.

To believe this, one must be a little blind, but to preach the kind of divisiveness that the Big 0 does, one must also be blind.

I'll take the defects of Reagan over the defects of Obama.

What a pile of shit. Reagan did more damage with his divisiveness than any president in modern history. Ronald Reagan’s most divisive legacy, resulted from his role in the culture wars. His social policies were not designed to advance civil rights, promote social equality.

You accuse Obama of divisiveness, what do you call what Republicans have done since Obama was elected President?

• What about Republican leaders and officials who got together during Obama's inauguration in the infamous, secret pact meeting to vow to destroy him at all costs—including the cost to the country?

• What about what Republicans did during the health care debate later revealed by George W. Bush's former speechwriter?

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

• What about the use of INSURGENCY by House Republicans?

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency



"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

Bullshit… Obama could have been a good president even though he's a Democrat. He could have used his office, brought people together for the good of the country, instead he locked out the Republicans completely, something no other president in modern times has done. He could have been an example but he's a narcissistic, leftist piece of shit. A small man who doesn’t deserve and was completely unprepared to hold the office he occupies

 

[thanatos144]

President Reagan's Address to the Nation on Independence Day - 7/4/86 - YouTube

To be honest, I don't see anybody of Reagan-calibre in either party right now.

Reagan wasn't that great of a President. He didn't really do anything great.

Only to the idiots who didnt live it.

 

[Jackson]

No, he wasn't grasping at straws, man. The president couldn't pronounce "corpsman." And had trouble remembering how many states we had. Maybe it was just how many he wanted to think he was messiah of at the time. Let's face it, he just needed more time to practice the nuances of the office and some geography lessons.

It wasn't that Obama could not pronounce the word correctly, he was just not familiar with the word, and had no idea what a corpsman is. Mispronunciation is no big deal, not knowing is something entirely different

Why don't you explain what a corpse-man is and why a President should be expected to know it?

Is he not Commander in Chief? A supposedly intelligent one at that?

 

[thanatos144]

It wasn't that Obama could not pronounce the word correctly, he was just not familiar with the word, and had no idea what a corpsman is. Mispronunciation is no big deal, not knowing is something entirely different

Why don't you explain what a corpse-man is and why a President should be expected to know it?

Is he not Commander in Chief? A supposedly intelligent one at that?

Obama is proof that money spent at Harvard is a waste cause the education you get there is sub par.

 

[Bfgrn]

I thought his point was that there was a myth created to make it seem as if a unpopular man was popular. The margin of victory might reveal to some that he was popular prior to the creation of the myth, fabricated or not.

The 70's were by any measure, a pretty dismal decade and politics was included in this.

Hairstyles, music, cars, clothes, economy, inflation, leadership, corruption, cynicism and division. The division was the worst for me. Everybody was hating everybody else. Coincidentally, division is what the Big 0 exhorts every day.

Reagan refused to be a part of this. He said and believed that we are one people with one role to play in the world. America, in his view, was a land of great promise populated by great people with a great destiny.

To believe this, one must be a little blind, but to preach the kind of divisiveness that the Big 0 does, one must also be blind.

I'll take the defects of Reagan over the defects of Obama.

What a pile of shit. Reagan did more damage with his divisiveness than any president in modern history. Ronald Reagan’s most divisive legacy, resulted from his role in the culture wars. His social policies were not designed to advance civil rights, promote social equality.

You accuse Obama of divisiveness, what do you call what Republicans have done since Obama was elected President?

• What about Republican leaders and officials who got together during Obama's inauguration in the infamous, secret pact meeting to vow to destroy him at all costs—including the cost to the country?

• What about what Republicans did during the health care debate later revealed by George W. Bush's former speechwriter?

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

• What about the use of INSURGENCY by House Republicans?

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency



"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

Bullshit… Obama could have been a good president even though he's a Democrat. He could have used his office, brought people together for the good of the country, instead he locked out the Republicans completely, something no other president in modern times has done. He could have been an example but he's a narcissistic, leftist piece of shit. A small man who doesn’t deserve and was completely unprepared to hold the office he occupies

You are a mindless parrot. Obama reached across the aisle, and Republicans chopped his hand off.

Why don't you try READING what Republicans have done since Obama was elected? HOW do you justify their domestic terrorism???

David Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for telling the truth about how Republicans made a collective decision to undermine health care reform and try to hand him his Waterloo.

And as it turns out, American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

 

[Jroc]

What a pile of shit. Reagan did more damage with his divisiveness than any president in modern history. Ronald Reagan’s most divisive legacy, resulted from his role in the culture wars. His social policies were not designed to advance civil rights, promote social equality.

You accuse Obama of divisiveness, what do you call what Republicans have done since Obama was elected President?

• What about Republican leaders and officials who got together during Obama's inauguration in the infamous, secret pact meeting to vow to destroy him at all costs—including the cost to the country?

• What about what Republicans did during the health care debate later revealed by George W. Bush's former speechwriter?

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

• What about the use of INSURGENCY by House Republicans?

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency



"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

Bullshit… Obama could have been a good president even though he's a Democrat. He could have used his office, brought people together for the good of the country, instead he locked out the Republicans completely, something no other president in modern times has done. He could have been an example but he's a narcissistic, leftist piece of shit. A small man who doesn’t deserve and was completely unprepared to hold the office he occupies

You are a mindless parrot. Obama reached across the aisle, and Republicans chopped his hand off.

Why don't you try READING what Republicans have done since Obama was elected? HOW do you justify their domestic terrorism???

David Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for telling the truth about how Republicans made a collective decision to undermine health care reform and try to hand him his Waterloo.

And as it turns out, American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

I could give a shit about Frum. Republicans had no power and Pelosi locked them out of any debate on Obamacare. Obama's sham get together were just that, all show for idiots like you. The only debates were between democrats… The so-called moderates, and the radicals, the moderates were bought off, and subsequently lost in 2010 as a result

 

[Bfgrn]

Bullshit… Obama could have been a good president even though he's a Democrat. He could have used his office, brought people together for the good of the country, instead he locked out the Republicans completely, something no other president in modern times has done. He could have been an example but he's a narcissistic, leftist piece of shit. A small man who doesn’t deserve and was completely unprepared to hold the office he occupies

You are a mindless parrot. Obama reached across the aisle, and Republicans chopped his hand off.

Why don't you try READING what Republicans have done since Obama was elected? HOW do you justify their domestic terrorism???

David Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for telling the truth about how Republicans made a collective decision to undermine health care reform and try to hand him his Waterloo.

And as it turns out, American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

I could give a shit about Frum. Republicans had no power and Pelosi locked them out of any debate on Obamacare. Obama's sham get together were just that, all show for idiots like you. The only debates were between democrats… The so-called moderates, and the radicals, the moderates were bought off, and subsequently lost in 2010 as a result

Of course you don't want to hear what a Republican insider like Frum has to say. That's because logic is an enemy and truth is a menace for the right wing dogmatic mind.

That's not all Frum had to say:

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

 

[Too Tall]

Reagan Legacy Project:

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

Yeah, that was a big job after the narrow margin of his re-election.

which has nothing to do with his point.

I can't remember any other President that has won 49 of the 50 states after his first term. Reagan must have been doing something right. LMAO

 

[Jroc]

You are a mindless parrot. Obama reached across the aisle, and Republicans chopped his hand off.

Why don't you try READING what Republicans have done since Obama was elected? HOW do you justify their domestic terrorism???

David Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for telling the truth about how Republicans made a collective decision to undermine health care reform and try to hand him his Waterloo.

And as it turns out, American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

I could give a shit about Frum. Republicans had no power and Pelosi locked them out of any debate on Obamacare. Obama's sham get together were just that, all show for idiots like you. The only debates were between democrats… The so-called moderates, and the radicals, the moderates were bought off, and subsequently lost in 2010 as a result

Of course you don't want to hear what a Republican insider like Frum has to say. That's because logic is an enemy and truth is a menace for the right wing dogmatic mind.

That's not all Frum had to say:

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

Blah..blah...blah...A bunch of stupid Democrat party taking points. I could give a shit what some Republican party "insider" has to say, they are part of the problem. Ever bigger and ever expanding "government is the problem" is not the solution.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama looks so small compared to this great man

July 7, 2012​

"An Argentine court has convicted two of the nation’s former right-wing dictators, Jorge Rafael Videla and Reynaldo Bignone, in a scheme to murder leftist mothers and give their infants to military personnel often complicit in the killings, a shocking process known to the Reagan administration even as it worked closely with the bloody regime.

Abrams said the Reagan administration “knew that it wasn’t just one or two children,” indicating that U.S. officials believed there was a high-level “plan because there were many people who were being murdered or jailed.” Estimates of the Argentines murdered in the so-called Dirty War range from 13,000 to about 30,000, with many victims “disappeared,” buried in mass graves or dumped from planes over the Atlantic.

A human rights group, Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, says as many as 500 babies were stolen by the military during the repression from 1976 to 1983. Some of the pregnant mothers were kept alive long enough to give birth and then were chained together with other prisoners and pushed out of the planes into the ocean to drown.

Despite U.S. government awareness of the grisly actions of the Argentine junta, which had drawn public condemnation from the Carter administration in the 1970s, these Argentine neo-Nazis were warmly supported by Ronald Reagan, both as a political commentator in the late 1970s and as President once he took office in 1981."

Yeah....Great Man​

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd8LE04MNPY]U2 - One & Mothers Of The Disappeared (PopMart Santiago 1998) - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Funny how the change in the unemployment percentage over Reagan's first 4 years is pretty much the same as Obama's - and Reagan is a great awesome super-cool PResident for the economy, while Obama sucks total ass for the economy. Can you righties explain that one? You can look up the figures if you want, Obama started with low 8 and now has low 8, Reagan started his first term with mid 7's and ended it with mid 7's. Both had a rise and decline during their first term, but the swing for Reagan was bigger, peaking at 10.8 while Obama peaked at 10.0 How come Reagan gets two chances but Obama should only have one? What's with the double standard, assholes? Do you just hate Obama? Or do you not get how numbers work?

 

[Bfgrn]

I could give a shit about Frum. Republicans had no power and Pelosi locked them out of any debate on Obamacare. Obama's sham get together were just that, all show for idiots like you. The only debates were between democrats… The so-called moderates, and the radicals, the moderates were bought off, and subsequently lost in 2010 as a result

Of course you don't want to hear what a Republican insider like Frum has to say. That's because logic is an enemy and truth is a menace for the right wing dogmatic mind.

That's not all Frum had to say:

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

Blah..blah...blah...A bunch of stupid Democrat party taking points. I could give a shit what some Republican party "insider" has to say, they are part of the problem. Ever bigger and ever expanding "government is the problem" is not the solution.

Yea, Frum is part of the problem, he's a Republican insider who speaks the truth. It disrupts your dogma.

Here is some more truth from George W. Bush's former speechwriter:


Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy

David Frum: A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush

Posted: September 15, 2009, 4:30 PM by NP Editor

Ron Brownstein ably sums up the Census Bureau’s final report on the Bush economy.

Bottom line: not good.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

What went wrong?

In a word: healthcare.

Over the years from 2000 to 2007, the price that employers paid for labor rose by an average of 25% per hour. But the wages received by workers were worth less in 2007 than seven years before. All that extra money paid by employers disappeared into the healthcare system: between 2000 and 2007, the cost of the average insurance policy for a family of four doubled.

Exploding health costs vacuumed up worker incomes. Frustrated workers began telling pollsters the country was on the “wrong track” as early as 2004 – the year that George W. Bush won re-election by the narrowest margin of any re-elected president in U.S. history.

Slowing the growth of health costs is essential to raising wages – and by the way restoring Americans’ faith in the fairness of a free-market economy.

Explaining the impact of health costs on wages is essential to protecting the economic reputation of the last Republican administration and Congress.

If Republicans stick to the line that the US healthcare system works well as is – that it has no important problems that cannot be solved by tort reform – then George W. Bush and the Congresses of 2001-2007 will join Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in the American memory’s hall of economic failures. Recovery from that stigma will demand more than a tea party.

Read more: David Frum: Healthcare costs destroyed the Bush economy - Full Comment

 

[Too Tall]

Funny how the change in the unemployment percentage over Reagan's first 4 years is pretty much the same as Obama's - and Reagan is a great awesome super-cool PResident for the economy, while Obama sucks total ass for the economy. Can you righties explain that one? You can look up the figures if you want, Obama started with low 8 and now has low 8, Reagan started his first term with mid 7's and ended it with mid 7's. Both had a rise and decline during their first term, but the swing for Reagan was bigger, peaking at 10.8 while Obama peaked at 10.0 How come Reagan gets two chances but Obama should only have one? What's with the double standard, assholes? Do you just hate Obama? Or do you not get how numbers work?

Here are a few FACTS that you want to check out.

Critics of the Reagan administration try to portray it as an era of high unemployment. However, unemployment peaked in 1982-3 (the same time the tax cuts were being implemented) and then dropped steadily down to 5.2% in 1989. Clearly the tax rate cuts and economic expansion cut unemployment significantly—by 4.3%—after it had increased by 2.5% from 1980-2.

In the end, the pro-growth economic policies paid off tremendously. Over 18 million jobs were created during the Reagan expansion.

The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988.

During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988.

The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988

 

[oreo]

A comment from a democrat CEO--who is a strong supporter of democrat senate majority leader Harry Reid hits home base.

"I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime. A lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, 'Oh God, don't be attacking Obama.' Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America."

"The guy [Obama] keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe 'we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or hold too much money.' We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists."

"Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs."

Steve Wynn of Wynn's resort and Casino--Las Vegas NV.
Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? - CBS News

 

[oreo]

Funny how the change in the unemployment percentage over Reagan's first 4 years is pretty much the same as Obama's - and Reagan is a great awesome super-cool PResident for the economy, while Obama sucks total ass for the economy. Can you righties explain that one? You can look up the figures if you want, Obama started with low 8 and now has low 8, Reagan started his first term with mid 7's and ended it with mid 7's. Both had a rise and decline during their first term, but the swing for Reagan was bigger, peaking at 10.8 while Obama peaked at 10.0 How come Reagan gets two chances but Obama should only have one? What's with the double standard, assholes? Do you just hate Obama? Or do you not get how numbers work?

Here are a few FACTS that you want to check out.

Critics of the Reagan administration try to portray it as an era of high unemployment. However, unemployment peaked in 1982-3 (the same time the tax cuts were being implemented) and then dropped steadily down to 5.2% in 1989. Clearly the tax rate cuts and economic expansion cut unemployment significantly—by 4.3%—after it had increased by 2.5% from 1980-2.

In the end, the pro-growth economic policies paid off tremendously. Over 18 million jobs were created during the Reagan expansion.

The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988.

During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988.

The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988

Because REAGAN wasn't and ECONOMIC MORON.

 

[Nova78]

Obama couldn't hold-up Regans jock strap, Obama is a legend in his own mind, history will show he will go down as the worst president of all time.......

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Funny how the change in the unemployment percentage over Reagan's first 4 years is pretty much the same as Obama's - and Reagan is a great awesome super-cool PResident for the economy, while Obama sucks total ass for the economy. Can you righties explain that one? You can look up the figures if you want, Obama started with low 8 and now has low 8, Reagan started his first term with mid 7's and ended it with mid 7's. Both had a rise and decline during their first term, but the swing for Reagan was bigger, peaking at 10.8 while Obama peaked at 10.0 How come Reagan gets two chances but Obama should only have one? What's with the double standard, assholes? Do you just hate Obama? Or do you not get how numbers work?

Here are a few FACTS that you want to check out.

Critics of the Reagan administration try to portray it as an era of high unemployment. However, unemployment peaked in 1982-3 (the same time the tax cuts were being implemented) and then dropped steadily down to 5.2% in 1989. Clearly the tax rate cuts and economic expansion cut unemployment significantly—by 4.3%—after it had increased by 2.5% from 1980-2.

Clearly you're assuming correlation always implies causation.

In the end, the pro-growth economic policies paid off tremendously. Over 18 million jobs were created during the Reagan expansion.

The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988.

During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988.

The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988

Maybe you didn't catch my question? Its the big letters above. Reagan ended his first term essentially flat on the unemployment rate. So is Obama.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Funny how the change in the unemployment percentage over Reagan's first 4 years is pretty much the same as Obama's - and Reagan is a great awesome super-cool PResident for the economy, while Obama sucks total ass for the economy. Can you righties explain that one? You can look up the figures if you want, Obama started with low 8 and now has low 8, Reagan started his first term with mid 7's and ended it with mid 7's. Both had a rise and decline during their first term, but the swing for Reagan was bigger, peaking at 10.8 while Obama peaked at 10.0 How come Reagan gets two chances but Obama should only have one? What's with the double standard, assholes? Do you just hate Obama? Or do you not get how numbers work?

Here are a few FACTS that you want to check out.

Critics of the Reagan administration try to portray it as an era of high unemployment. However, unemployment peaked in 1982-3 (the same time the tax cuts were being implemented) and then dropped steadily down to 5.2% in 1989. Clearly the tax rate cuts and economic expansion cut unemployment significantly—by 4.3%—after it had increased by 2.5% from 1980-2.

In the end, the pro-growth economic policies paid off tremendously. Over 18 million jobs were created during the Reagan expansion.

The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988.

During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988.

The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988

Because REAGAN wasn't and ECONOMIC MORON.

So Reagan wasn't "and" economic moron, he just had the same results as an economic moron in his first term.

So I ask again the same question in the big letters above.