Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15131729, member: 29707"] You believe you understand his ego.

Have you ever counted the number of times he says "I" in a speech?
Even ones that shouldn't have anything to do with him. It's pathological.

You state he is making America weaker.

Clearly.
EToddsterpatriot, post: 15131729, member: 29707"] You believe you understand his ego.

Have you ever counted the number of times he says "I" in a speech?
Even ones that shouldn't have anything to do with him. It's pathological.
Have you ever counted the way you have made ignorant attacks on democrats. 24/7/365. Kind of like a con troll. Makes you irrelevant.

You state he is making America weaker.

Clearly.
Wow, another con talking point from a con troll. Complete with NO proof. Here, me boy. this is proof you are substantially wrong, complete with a link. Pay attention to the "countries viewing US favorably" section. Certainly does not support you, me con troll. Nor do the S and P numbers, Corporate Profits, the trade deficit, the ue rate, the jobs available. Good luck with that statement, me boy. It is an unmeasurable con troll talking point. It is not going to end well for you.

I love the sources you provide that fail to back up your original claim!

CBO never said the Obama "stimulus" created 10,122,000 jobs. Liar!
 
"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15131763, member: 29707"]Let me know when you get the CBO report that backs up your stimulus claim.

I would have to provide you with quarterly CBO reports with quarterly results from 2009,

Nope. Just the one report you claimed you already provided from the CBO that says,
"Obama's stimulus plan is responsible for the creation of 9.3 million jobs".
But you can't. Because it doesn't exist. Because you lied or because you are stupid (or your reading issue).[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
S0, lets summarize. I have answered that question several times. You are unable to read my post. That is not my fault, dipshit. You are a simple con troll, trying to push con talking points. The report was a FactCheck report. Simple. And the employment numbers, according to fact check, came from the cbo. If I am wrong, then they are Fact checks own numbers. Though fact check does not generate such numbers, but uses agency numbers.
Here is an interesting CBO look at the issue of the Stimulus, way back in June 2012. Well before the latest report. Go find someone to read it to you:

"Elmendorf’s testimony came in response to questions from Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), a member of the tea party caucus. Huelskamp asserted that the stimulus was a failure because it did not keep the jobless rate below 8 percent, as the Obama administration predicted.

“Where did Washington mess up?” Huelskamp demanded. “Because you’re saying most economists think it should’ve worked. It didn’t.”

Most economists not only think it should have worked; they think it did work, Elmendorf replied. CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession."
Obama’s Numbers July 2016 Update

So, it is obvious that:
1, The head of the CBO believes the package (stimulus) added as many as 3.3 Million jobs in one quarter. That would be a third of the 10 million jobs in one quarter.
2. Huelskamp, the republican tea party congressman, is much like you, me boy. A con troll spouting bullshit.
3. Like you, Huelskamp was shut down, but did not understand. Like you.
 
S0, lets summarize. I have answered that question several times.

You provided a CBO report that backs your claim, several times? I don't believe you.

The report was a FactCheck report. Simple.

Yes. A simple FactCheck report is not a CBO report.

And the employment numbers, according to fact check, came from the cbo.

You're lying.

If I am wrong, then they are Fact checks own numbers.


So you don't have a CBO report that backs up your claim? I'm shocked!!!
 
S0, lets summarize. I have answered that question several times.

You provided a CBO report that backs your claim, several times? I don't believe you.

The report was a FactCheck report. Simple.

Yes. A simple FactCheck report is not a CBO report.

And the employment numbers, according to fact check, came from the cbo.

You're lying.

If I am wrong, then they are Fact checks own numbers.


So you don't have a CBO report that backs up your claim? I'm shocked!!!

Yes, he is spinning faster than a Beanie and Cecil hat!

1. Did Obamas unemployment numbers go up or down after he was elected? (they went up, lol) So, if it is Reagans fault, it must be Obamas fault then to, so quit blaming Booooosh-)

2. Did revenues INCREASE after Reagans tax break? Yes they did! They also increased after Kennedy's, GW's, and Bill Clintons capital gains tax cut, so quit spinning!

3. What was Reagans GDP numbers, can you even report that accurately? (bet not, since they make Obama look like a duffus; which he is)

4. Did personal wealth GROW under Reagan, and how have they faired under Obama! (spin that one, sucker!)

5. How many more or less people entered poverty under Reagan? How about Obama! (he/she is cringing now)

6. Did Reagan give our defense secrets to the USSR, or destroy them giving Clinton the peace dividend? Did Obama destroy, or help radical Islam, meaning we have to ramp up defense spending again?

7. How much did African American income rise under Reagan? How much has it dumped under Obama! (see, Democrats are bigots)

8. When Mohamar Khaddaffi got lippy, Reagan bombed the shit out of his palace, and we no longer heard much from Mr Khaddaffi. What did Obama do? Gave billions to the Iranians, and didn't they just harass one of our destroyers, while chanting "death to America," and Alah Acbar, Yabba-dabba-doo!!

And you think Reagan was bad, Obama was good?

Let me tell you something you arrogant clown, do you know who REALLY saved the auto industry! It was Ronald Reagan, that is who. And he did it without investing BILLIONS into it, or don't you remember the term, "trigger price mechanism." Why do you think Toyota, Honda, and the rest of the offshore automakers moved plants here! Reagan fixed their clocks by preventing dumping, and just like Trump, threatened tariffs for unfair import practices. They were selling vehicles at a loss to put Ford, GM, and Chrysler under, while keeping their home market closed so they had a captive audience FORCED to buy their products at a premium to finance their dumping here.

Was Reagan perfect? Hell no he wasn't, I don't know a human being that is. But when he was done, the economy had grown tremendously, the Soviet Union was out of business, and every quintile of the population had seen their paychecks grow significantly. If Obama had pulled the same thing off, I would be voting Democrat. He didn't even come close. In fact, his economic record is worse than any President in modern history.

So stick it in your ear. You are a hack, and have been indoctrinated into nonsense. If you lived through Reagan, then you know what the country felt after he got his plans going, and what the country now feels under Obama. No comparison, no matter how you try and spin it!

P.S. Not meant for you Todd. Thought one of his messages was quoted in yours, sorry.
 
So, some con troll makes the following stupid comment:
Yes, he is spinning faster than a Beanie and Cecil hat!Q of one normal person?


1. Did Obamas unemployment numbers go up or down after he was elected? (they went up, lol) So, if it is Reagans fault, it must be Obamas fault then to, so quit blaming Booooosh-) So, you do not want to see who was in charge of the economy when the worst recession since the great republican depression of 1929, occurred. Got it. You only want to blame democrats, not look at the records of republicans. Nah. not going to happen, dipshit. You see, as a result of W's policies, we were loosing 500,000 jobs of actual american workers. That you do not give a shit is normal for con trolls. But it was the truth, me boy. Sorry, just the truth.
So i am trying to understand if you are really as stupid as you seem to be. Obama came to the presidency with the ue rate going up like a rocket, loosing 500,000 jobs per month. Did you expect them to stop immediately.?
Do you ever try to see what economists think? Of course not. As a con troll, you just post con drivel. Talking points?
There is an obvious difference between the reagan presidency start, and the obama presidency start.
1. For obama, when he took over, we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. Not his creation, but that of Republicans.
When obama took over, he had an unemployment rate of 7.1% that was pretty stable. Had been the same for a couple years.
The obama economy was heading toward a Depression, according to most economists.
The reagan economy was heading neither up nor down, just a somewhat bad ue rate. He created, on his own, a deep recession. Known, oddly enough, as the Reagan recession.



2. Did revenues INCREASE after Reagans tax break? Yes they did! Sorry, me boy, they did not. They also increased after Kennedy's, GW's, and Bill Clintons capital gains tax cut, so quit spinning!
Uh, sorry you do not understand. Probably because you are stupid. No one said a tax cut causes bad results. Depends entirely on how you fund it. In reagan's case, it caused a recession. That is, cutting programs that were not military, while advancing programs that were. So, he had a really deep recession.

3. What was Reagans GDP numbers, can you even report that accurately? (bet not, since they make Obama look like a duffus; which he is)
My god. Are you that stupid? Type in gdp by year in google. Not my job, dipshit. Do it for yourself. And yes, I am aware. Dipshit. Now, did you have a point?


4. Did personal wealth GROW under Reagan, and how have they faired under Obama! (spin that one, sucker!)
So, you insult me and want me to look up numbers for you that mean absolutely nothing. Nah. Fuck you.

5. How many more or less people entered poverty under Reagan? How about Obama! (he/she is cringing now)
So, you insult me and want me to look up numbers for you that mean absolutely nothing. Nah. Fuck you.

6. Did Reagan give our defense secrets to the USSR, or destroy them giving Clinton the peace dividend? Did Obama destroy, or help radical Islam, meaning we have to ramp up defense spending again? Wow. More con talking points. Untrue, as usual. But well done, listing well known con talking points. Proving you are a con troll.

7. How much did African American income rise under Reagan? How much has it dumped under Obama! (see, Democrats are bigots)
Since it was the great republican recession of 2008, I would think one would blame republicans for any problems with income. Unless you are a con troll, and brainless. Truth (look it up) is that african american income raised by a whole 2,000 over 8 years under Reagan. A whole $250 per year, under a really good economy for the last 4 years. Which is low, me boy. Certainly nothing to brag about. For Obama, they went down resulting from the great republican recession of 2008, As they did for everyone. They are higher now, but how much they will have gained is no one's knowledge, me boy. Several months to go. But they will not have dumped, me boy. That is just another con talking point. If you could reason, you could actually look it up easily.
But well done, listing well known con talking points. Proving you are a con troll.


8. When Mohamar Khaddaffi got lippy, Reagan bombed the shit out of his palace, and we no longer heard much from Mr Khaddaffi. What did Obama do? Gave billions to the Iranians, and didn't they just harass one of our destroyers, while chanting "death to America," and Alah Acbar, Yabba-dabba-doo!!
Yep. and reagan did a great job of trading guns for
Ok. thanks for proving that:
1. R. Reagan is your hero.
2. You get your talking points from bat shit crazy con web sites, Fox, and nut case viral emails authored by paid con writers. You are a good little con troll. Believing and doing as you were told.
And you think Reagan was bad, Obama was good?
3. You have no sources for your drivel, because you do not want people to know where you get your nonsense.
So, since we are talking international issues, maybe you want to talk about Iran Contra. Most people would have seen a bunch of jail time, had they pulled off what Reagan did.


Let me tell you something you arrogant clown, sorry, you are not capable. Go get a brain transplant and come back. do you know who REALLY saved the auto industry! It was Ronald Reagan, that is who. And he did it without investing BILLIONS into it, or don't you remember the term, "trigger price mechanism." Why do you think Toyota, Honda, and the rest of the offshore automakers moved plants here! Reagan fixed their clocks by preventing dumping, and just like Trump, threatened tariffs for unfair import practices. They were selling vehicles at a loss to put Ford, GM, and Chrysler under, while keeping their home market closed so they had a captive audience FORCED to buy their products at a premium to finance their dumping here. Wow. You are indeed a delusional con troll. Some was true, but had NOTHING to do with the 2008 Great Republican Recession, which would have ended the US auto industry. Particularly if we had listened to republicans and cons like you, dipshit. But he saved that industry. Because, you see, anything Reagan had accomplished years earlier did not carry forward. Dipshit.

Was Reagan perfect? Hell no he wasn't, Ah, you know he was. Because you are a con troll. I don't know a human being that is. But when he was done, the economy had grown tremendously, Yup. Did a tax cut, created a recession, used stimulus spending, got it well down. Lets see how it ended up:
1. Reagan spent more than all other presidents before him combined.
2. He tripled the national debt. Only president in us history to do so.
3. Reagan greatly increased the size of the US government.
4. Reagan raised taxes 11 times, after his great tax cut cause the Reagan Recession
.
So, he proved that stimulus works. And accepted that Supply Side economics did not.

Relative to taxes, consider:
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
Or, consider what Stockman, the Director of Budgets under Reagan, says:

Reagan Budget Director: ‘Absolutely’ Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did
By Alex Seitz-Wald

As Washington considers ways to rein in the deficit, Republicans have obstinately demanded that any tax revenue increases be taken off the table, claiming that raising taxes during a down economy would doom the recovery. As evidence, they often point to the presidency of Ronald Reagan, claiming his massive 1981 tax cuts caused that decade’s economic boom. But this anti-tax position makes it almost impossible to do anything serious about the deficit, since — despite GOP talking points — the country has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. On ABC’s This Week today, Reagan’s own budget director, David Stockman, exposed the GOP tax cut “theology” for the ahistorical sham it is. Asked by Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland if the economy could “sustain” a tax increase, Stockman said “absolutely,” noting that the economy only recovered under Reagan once he raised taxes in 1982 after “cut[ting] taxes too much” the year before
Reagan Budget Director: ‘Absolutely’ Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did – ThinkProgress

the Soviet Union was out of business, and every quintile of the population had seen their paychecks grow significantly. If Obama had pulled the same thing off, I would be voting Democrat. If Reagan had inherited the great republican recession of 2008, and if democrats had refused to help at all, he would have a ruined economy, in my humble but correct opinion. He didn't even come close. Looks like, even after the great republican recession, he will have created more jobs In fact, his economic record is worse than any President in modern history. That, me boy, would be a lie, which is why you have no link to prove it. That kind of comment will get you a completely irrelevant reputation. But it does show you are a con troll, and stupid.
Then, what was really cool about Reagan, was Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Another reason he was a good president.


So stick it in your ear. No. That thing came out of your ass. You are just too gross. You are a hack, and have been indoctrinated into nonsense. That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion, dipshit. Now, you are indoctrinated. Because you are a con troll, posting untrue con talking points. And you believe them. Rational people have no source of indoctrination. Unlike cons, we hate being lied to. But again, you proved yourself a con troll. If you lived through Reagan, then you know what the country felt after he got his plans going, and what the country now feels under Obama. Dipshit, I did live through Reagan. Voted for him on his first election. Big mistake. But overall, I think he was a good president. Just had no economic understanding at all. But he did handle illegal imagrents well. And by the way, by 1984, Reagan was about as popular as a fart in church. Sorry you missed it. The ue rate went up to 10.8%, second highest in us history. But by his second term election, the ue rate had dropped back to where it was when he entered office.

No comparison, no matter how you try and spin it!
Relative to his popularity, he is currently about 1.8% higher than Obama. That, me boy, is a statistical tie. And, compared to Presidents dating back to Kennedy, the following were ahead of him in popularity: George H.W Bush, Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy (highest at over 70%), and Dwight Eisenhower. So, in this country, he was number six of the last 10. Had 5 above him, 4 below him. About average, me boy. According to Gallup. So, you are wrong again.
h
ttp://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

Where do I send the bill to for your education, dip shit?
 
S0, lets summarize. I have answered that question several times.
[/QUOTE]
You provided a CBO report that backs your claim, several times? I don't believe you.
You are a simple lying con troll, me boy. I explained that clearly to you multiple times, and directed you twice to the FactCheck report I refered to. They stated in their report that the numbers came from the cbo. You are, technically, a fucking liar, who is siply wasting time. Because you lost your argument.

The report was a FactCheck report. Simple.

Yes. A simple FactCheck report is not a CBO report.

Do you consider a quarterly FactCheck report simple?
How many more times do you need this explained to you?


And the employment numbers, according to fact check, came from the cbo.

You're lying.
I never ever lie.
Do you suppose that FactCheck works out the numbers on their own, dipshit.


If I am wrong, then they are Fact checks own numbers.


So you don't have a CBO report that backs up your claim? I'm shocked!!!

How many times do I have to explain this to you?
Having done so several times, can we just acknowledge you are playing games?
Do you think Fact Check makes the numbers themselves, me boy?



So, do you not trust FactCheck?
Everyone except complete idiots trusts Fact Check. Are you a complete idiot?

So, you started out with about 10 points you were arguing. So, all but one are lost to you, except one about whether there was a single report from the cbo. So, you have lost that argument. May as well close this effort at pushing con talking points, and go try your lies with some one else. Because, me boy, you are a simple lying con troll who is wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
Reagan raised taxes 11 times, after his great tax cut cause the Reagan Recession.

Yes, Reagan's recession, which started in July 1981, was caused by the Reagan tax cut, which was signed on August 13, 1981.

Fuck, you're stupid.
 
Reagan raised taxes 11 times, after his great tax cut cause the Reagan Recession.

Yes, Reagan's recession, which started in July 1981, was caused by the Reagan tax cut, which was signed on August 13, 1981.
[/QUOTE]
Fuck, you're stupid.
Considering the source of that statement, thanks.

I have explained this to you before. You are probably pretending I did not. But just for old times, and because you are so ignorant, I will attempt to enlighten you. Seldome works with con trolls, because they prefer their con talking points.

I have shown you links to his friends who were on his economic team who say exactly what I do. I have read David Stockman's words who also says what I am trying to get you to understand. But sorry, they are not as cool as con talking points you love so much.

So, here is the situation Reagan had. He had an aggregate demand economy with the ue rate rising toward 11 percent. In late 2981, he, stockman, et al, decided they needed to stop the recession. So, they had choices. In addition to unemployment there was a critical deficit issue. so, what to do? They decided their only rational hope was a stimulus effort. But stimulus efforts cost, driving up the deficit. So, in order to finance the stimulus, they did what most politicians do. They raised taxes. substantially. Problem was, Reagan had an addiction to spending on the military.. So, interesting problem. He had cut government non military programs causing unemployment and a lack or revenue. He had expanded military spending, but it would take a couple years to see much employment reaction, and it would be relatively small. So, he said to hell with the deficit, and spent like crazy.
So as you should be aware, he spent more than all past presidents combined, tripled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the government.
If you disbelieve any of this, then don't bother going any further. Rational people would research what I said, I suspect you will not, because you do not want to believe it.
Net is, he spent enough to fix the economy. He drove the recession into the ground. Great job of that. And just did not want to worry about the national debts, or deficits. But the economy got much better.
Net was he increased new jobs about half as much as Clinton, and a bit more than Obama, at least so far.
And, the public had no problem with it at all, Because they did not understand it. Like you, he simply thought tax cuts caused a great economy to emerge. Poor stupid people.

It is the tax cut that kicks off the problem. It does not actually cause much of an issue, but paying for the tax cut does. Because, you see, you have to stop gov activities, programs, and/or departments to pay for the stimulus you need. And that starts the chain, which may be long and destructive. path. Better to rais taxes if you want to spare the budget, or simply forget it and say to hell with the deficit.
You see, never in the history of economics on this planet has the deficit, and therefor the national debt, gotten better when the ue rate is a problem. Because, you see, it is a revenue problem. It is really not a spending problem.


So, relative to raising taxes, check out what david tockman, Reagans director of budget, had to say:
"Republicans have obstinately demanded that any tax revenue increases be taken off the table, claiming that raising taxes during a down economy would doom the recovery. As evidence, they often point to the presidency of Ronald Reagan, claiming his massive 1981 tax cuts caused that decade’s economic boom. But this anti-tax position makes it almost impossible to do anything serious about the deficit, since —despite GOP talking points — the country has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. On ABC’s This Week today, Reagan’s own budget director, David Stockman, exposed the GOP tax cut “theology” for the ahistorical sham it is. Asked by Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland if the economy could “sustain” a tax increase, Stockman said “absolutely,” noting that the economy only recovered under Reagan once he raised taxes in 1982 after “cut[ting] taxes too much” the year before.
So I have understood this issue for over 50 years. But republicans have been working against people understanding it for just as long. Up to you. Remain stupid, or get some education.
Reagan Budget Director: ‘Absolutely’ Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did – ThinkProgress


So, did Reagan tax cuts increase revenue and add 10's of millions of jobs?

No, and no. Here is the proof:
"There were 90.9 million jobs at the start of Reagan’s presidency — and 106.9 million at the end, according to the Labor Department. That’s a gain of 16 million jobs, or 2 million per year in office. Bill Clinton can maybe claim “tens of millions” with the 23.1 million jobs created during his time in office, but not Reagan.
Under Clinton, 2.9 million jobs a year were created. Ironically, Reagan actually trails Jimmy Carter on the presidential list of most jobs created per year, even though he defeated Carter on charges of mishandling the economy. About 2.6 million jobs a year were created in Carter’s single term."

"As we said, that’s for economic historians to sort out. But the paper says it was “an enduring myth” that Reagan officials believed tax cuts would pay for themselves. “This was nonsense from day one, because the credible evidence overwhelmingly indicates that revenue feedbacks from tax cuts is 35 cents per dollar, at most,” the paper says, noting that “the Reagan administration never assumed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves.”

Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury Department official who helped craft the 1981 tax cut as a congressional aide at the time, in a 2011 article for Tax Notes reproduced the Reagan administration and Congressional Budget Office scores of the Reagan tax plan. Both predicted revenues would fall as a result of the tax cut. But both turned out to be off the mark about extent of the fiscal impact because the 1981-1982 recession turned out to be deeper than expected and inflation fell more rapidly than expected. That steep decline in revenues is a major reason why Reagan boosted taxes just one year after his tax cut.

Bartlett wrote that he considers the 1981 tax cut to be a success because “it not only didn’t raise inflation, as almost all economists thought it would, but it also helped the economy transition from high inflation to low inflation at a remarkably low economic cost.” But he said it clearly resulted in less revenue.

The Pinocchio Test
It’s always hard to make judgments on economic issues, as the impact of various policies can be vigorously debated. We have no opinion on whether the 1981 Reagan tax cut was good or bad for the economy, except that it seems rather simplistic to attribute every good thing that happened to a single event. As Bartlett noted, Federal Reserve policy and the stimulus from increased government spending were also important factors.
In his remarks, Paul falls into the trap of suggesting the Reagan tax cuts paid for themselves—and then some. Reagan never claimed that would be the case—and the Treasury Department in 2006 confirmed that tax cuts reduced revenue. Moreover, Reagan repeatedly boosted taxes during his term as president, in part to make up for lost revenue from his original tax cut.
But the tax cut itself was a money-loser for the government–and it was not the sole reason for “tens of millions” of jobs. We cannot quite say Paul committed a Four-Pinocchio violation, but it’s close.

Three Pinocchios

pinocchio_3.jpg

Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’

So, to summarize, the tax cuts reduced revenue, and did little to increase jobs. Jobs increased later, after the recovery from the recession. And, the recession was indeed caused as a chain reaction started by the tax cut.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top