Reagan vs Obama

[Antiderivative]

why?

Is it not self exclamatory?

Do I really have to explain why quoiting "Boedicca" is wrong?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I never discussed taxs, remember ? that was your strawman.

Since the OP emphasized Reagan's MASSIVE TAX CUTS, any reference of mine to Reagan and taxes was/is perfectly relevant to the topic.

and that wouldn't even be a strawman if you were right.

Here, please, listen:

A strawman is when you ignore a person's real position and construct a distorted position to replace it with, one that is not what the person said or believes but is easier to refute,

as in, knock down,

as in it's easier to knock down a man of straw than a real man?

OK? Please memorize that so you won't annoy us in the future with your ignorance of the term.

 

[boedicca]

why?

Is it not self exclamatory?

Do I really have to explain why quoiting "Boedicca" is wrong?

I'll explain.

When either you or TMN quote me, all you do is display your complete and utter lack of reading comprehension and logical thought processes.

 

[Sallow]

So, out of all that verbiage designed to cloud the issue...you seem to admit that Democrat Clinton marched shoulder to shoulder with Communist Tyrannt Fidel Castro....


...I see your improvement already!

Ah..so you hate Clinton and love Reagan..

This speaks volumes.

I love posting it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R67CH-qhXJs]YouTube - President Ronald Reagan - Address on Iran-Contra[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5YOQEZtNE0&feature=related]YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speech about Iran-Contra (Part 2 of 2)[/ame]

He committed treason and lied about it.

Is this like that thousandth time you've posted that and called it "treason"? Is it not treason to take bags of cash from chinese monks or are you just a hyper partisan faggot?...........

No and no.

But thanks for playing.

There are door prizes.

 

[boedicca]

Since the OP emphasized Reagan's MASSIVE TAX CUTS, any reference of mine to Reagan and taxes was/is perfectly relevant to the topic.

You are an utter moron.

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I never said he deserved a pass,I also said now for the 5th or 6th time it was his ball, his recession, either way.........

and as far as the rest of your rant-

here, you and tiachi liberal can belly up to the same pharmaceutical counter-

According to multiple sources, Coprolalia is best treated with Aripiprazole.

I am concerned for your psychological well being buddy, you know that.......please give it a look.

Ok, then explain to all of us, explicitly, why you brought up Reagan being shot at all.

Tell us exactly what was your reason. In detail.

It's a valid argument...NOT an excuse...

Reagan couldn't stop the 81 recession because he got shot. If he had not gotten shot there would not have been a 16 month recession on Reagan's watch.

There. Now defend your claim with facts.

 

[The T]

Since the OP emphasized Reagan's MASSIVE TAX CUTS, any reference of mine to Reagan and taxes was/is perfectly relevant to the topic.

You are an utter moron.

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

And what Obama is doing now...

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million<Washington Times

The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.

 

[The T]

Ok, then explain to all of us, explicitly, why you brought up Reagan being shot at all.

Tell us exactly what was your reason. In detail.

It's a valid argument...NOT an excuse...

Reagan couldn't stop the 81 recession because he got shot. If he had not gotten shot there would not have been a 16 month recession on Reagan's watch.

There. Now defend your claim with facts.

And it all was brought on by Whom?

Jimmah Catah...

Thanks for playing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since the OP emphasized Reagan's MASSIVE TAX CUTS, any reference of mine to Reagan and taxes was/is perfectly relevant to the topic.

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

Are all recessions followed by expansions, regardless of presidential policies?

Did Reagan raise taxes in 1982, BEFORE the recession ended?

Did that tax increase roll back a good portion of the amount of the tax cuts of 81?

Was that tax increase designed to enhance/improve/raise revenues?



Let me help you. The answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a valid argument...NOT an excuse...

Reagan couldn't stop the 81 recession because he got shot. If he had not gotten shot there would not have been a 16 month recession on Reagan's watch.

There. Now defend your claim with facts.

And it all was brought on by Whom?

Jimmah Catah...

Thanks for playing.

You didn't defend your claim. First things first. I want to be entertained by this new 'theory'.

THEN you can tell us exactly what President Carter did to cause a recession 6 months after he left office.

 

[The T]

Since the OP emphasized Reagan's MASSIVE TAX CUTS, any reference of mine to Reagan and taxes was/is perfectly relevant to the topic.

You are an utter moron.

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

And what Obama is doing now...

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million<Washington Times

The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.

Now ADD this to the growing takers outta the treasury...Welfare...and Unemployment...


Numbers On Welfare See Sharp Increase<2009

The Numbers of TAKERS are outweighing the producers...

 

[Sallow]

Since the OP emphasized Reagan's MASSIVE TAX CUTS, any reference of mine to Reagan and taxes was/is perfectly relevant to the topic.

You are an utter moron.

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

And the myth-making continues.

I suppose it's ridiculous to point out the bond market and the financial sector went into full collapse during the Reagan administration which needed a tax-payer funded bailout (Sound familiar?)

This might help..a little.

Silverado Savings and LoanSilverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion. Neil Bush, son of then Vice President of the United States George H. W. Bush, was on the Board of Directors of Silverado at the time. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing.[16]

The U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Neil Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.[17]

As a director of a failing thrift, Bush voted to approve $100 million in what were ultimately bad loans to two of his business partners. And in voting for the loans, he failed to inform fellow board members at Silverado Savings & Loan that the loan applicants were his business partners.[citation needed]

Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine, paid for him by Republican supporters.[18] , and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. A Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Bush and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million.

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The T]

Reagan couldn't stop the 81 recession because he got shot. If he had not gotten shot there would not have been a 16 month recession on Reagan's watch.

There. Now defend your claim with facts.

And it all was brought on by Whom?

Jimmah Catah...

Thanks for playing.

You didn't defend your claim. First things first. I want to be entertained by this new 'theory'.

THEN you can tell us exactly what President Carter did to cause a recession 6 months after he left office.

And YOU can tell us about residuals.

 

[boedicca]

Since the OP emphasized Reagan's MASSIVE TAX CUTS, any reference of mine to Reagan and taxes was/is perfectly relevant to the topic.

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

Are all recessions followed by expansions, regardless of presidential policies?

Did Reagan raise taxes in 1982, BEFORE the recession ended?

Did that tax increase roll back a good portion of the amount of the tax cuts of 81?

Was that tax increase designed to enhance/improve/raise revenues?



Let me help you. The answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

The recession was caused in order to get rid of double digit inflation. After inflation was tamed, the tax cuts helped fuel growth.

Frankly, I'd rather see such 7%+ GDP growth instead of the anemic 1.8% Obama version.

 

[Toro]

Trump is partially correct..but no businesses are getting "penalized" in this country..far from it.

And if you'd ever been to China..you'd know that the Chinese are now imposing all sorts of regulations concerning the environment. They have to. China is so polluted now it's causing all sorts of problems.

Really? They aren't? Why so many layoffs? Why is the unemployment rate so high?

*Try Again*

There is a lack of demand. This is a demand side problem, not a supply side one.

It is a supply problem. There is too much supply. There is always too much supply after a recession induced by the collapse of an asset bubble.

 

[Toro]

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

Are all recessions followed by expansions, regardless of presidential policies?

Did Reagan raise taxes in 1982, BEFORE the recession ended?

Did that tax increase roll back a good portion of the amount of the tax cuts of 81?

Was that tax increase designed to enhance/improve/raise revenues?



Let me help you. The answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

The recession was caused in order to get rid of double digit inflation. After inflation was tamed, the tax cuts helped fuel growth.

Frankly, I'd rather see such 7%+ GDP growth instead of the anemic 1.8% Obama version.

The recessions under Reagan had nothing to do with Reagan. The recessions under Reagan were because interest rates were jacked up to 15% to break inflation.

But that's critical to understanding why today is so much different than then. The forces in the economy are deflationary today. Under Reagan, they were inflationary. The policy responses are completely different. In the 80s, we were trying to disinflate the economy. Today we are trying to inflate it. So one would expect the outcomes to be different.

 

[boedicca]

Are all recessions followed by expansions, regardless of presidential policies?

Did Reagan raise taxes in 1982, BEFORE the recession ended?

Did that tax increase roll back a good portion of the amount of the tax cuts of 81?

Was that tax increase designed to enhance/improve/raise revenues?



Let me help you. The answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

The recession was caused in order to get rid of double digit inflation. After inflation was tamed, the tax cuts helped fuel growth.

Frankly, I'd rather see such 7%+ GDP growth instead of the anemic 1.8% Obama version.

The recessions under Reagan had nothing to do with Reagan. The recessions under Reagan were because interest rates were jacked up to 15% to break inflation.

But that's critical to understanding why today is so much different than then. The forces in the economy are deflationary today. Under Reagan, they were inflationary. The policy responses are completely different. In the 80s, we were trying to disinflate the economy. Today we are trying to inflate it. So one would expect the outcomes to be different.

Well, the responses and outcomes of the present one are awful.

We can't increase interest rates without slowing down already anemic growth.
We can't increase spending any further - $1T+ deficits are not helping.
We can't keep printing money.

And this nonsense that the reason Keynesianism didn't work is because we didn't do enough (a meme which has been brewing for awhile) should be ignored.

What we have before us is the biggest exercise in Keynesian Big Government Crappola in the history of a supposed Free Society. It has failed. And more of the same isn't going to "fix" the economy.

 

[The T]

The recession was caused in order to get rid of double digit inflation. After inflation was tamed, the tax cuts helped fuel growth.

Frankly, I'd rather see such 7%+ GDP growth instead of the anemic 1.8% Obama version.

The recessions under Reagan had nothing to do with Reagan. The recessions under Reagan were because interest rates were jacked up to 15% to break inflation.

But that's critical to understanding why today is so much different than then. The forces in the economy are deflationary today. Under Reagan, they were inflationary. The policy responses are completely different. In the 80s, we were trying to disinflate the economy. Today we are trying to inflate it. So one would expect the outcomes to be different.

Well, the responses and outcomes of the present one are awful.

We can't increase interest rates without slowing down already anemic growth.
We can't increase spending any further - $1T+ deficits are not helping.
We can't keep printing money.

And this nonsense that the reason Keynesianism didn't work is because we didn't do enough (a meme which has been brewing for awhile) should be ignored.

What we have before us is the biggest exercise in Keynesian Big Government Crappola in the history of a supposed Free Society. It has failed. And more of the same isn't going to "fix" the economy.

And why did the FED announce this week it ceased buying T-Bills?

And what was the purpose of our own Government buying them in the first place?

LINK...

YouTube - FRAUD: Federal Reserve Is Selling Put Options On Treasury Bonds To Drive Down Yields

 

[Trajan]

Since the OP emphasized Reagan's MASSIVE TAX CUTS, any reference of mine to Reagan and taxes was/is perfectly relevant to the topic.

You are an utter moron.

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

And the myth-making continues.

I suppose it's ridiculous to point out the bond market and the financial sector went into full collapse during the Reagan administration which needed a tax-payer funded bailout (Sound familiar?)

This might help..a little.

Silverado Savings and LoanSilverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion. Neil Bush, son of then Vice President of the United States George H. W. Bush, was on the Board of Directors of Silverado at the time. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing.[16]

The U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Neil Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.[17]

As a director of a failing thrift, Bush voted to approve $100 million in what were ultimately bad loans to two of his business partners. And in voting for the loans, he failed to inform fellow board members at Silverado Savings & Loan that the loan applicants were his business partners.[citation needed]

Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine, paid for him by Republican supporters.[18] , and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. A Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Bush and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million.

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from a guy who goes ballistic when Michelle Obama is the object of the slightest ridicule, let me be the first to congratulate you on bringing hypocrisy to its newest high water mark...

 

[The T]

The recession was caused in order to get rid of double digit inflation. After inflation was tamed, the tax cuts helped fuel growth.

Frankly, I'd rather see such 7%+ GDP growth instead of the anemic 1.8% Obama version.

The recessions under Reagan had nothing to do with Reagan. The recessions under Reagan were because interest rates were jacked up to 15% to break inflation.

But that's critical to understanding why today is so much different than then. The forces in the economy are deflationary today. Under Reagan, they were inflationary. The policy responses are completely different. In the 80s, we were trying to disinflate the economy. Today we are trying to inflate it. So one would expect the outcomes to be different.

Well, the responses and outcomes of the present one are awful.

We can't increase interest rates without slowing down already anemic growth.
We can't increase spending any further - $1T+ deficits are not helping.
We can't keep printing money.

And this nonsense that the reason Keynesianism didn't work is because we didn't do enough (a meme which has been brewing for awhile) should be ignored.

What we have before us is the biggest exercise in Keynesian Big Government Crappola in the history of a supposed Free Society. It has failed. And more of the same isn't going to "fix" the economy.

Everything that is being done is FRAUD by the FED.

I am with Ron Paul on Auditing the FED...and ultimately denying it's Existence via Amendment.