Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

[Toddsterpatriot]

Will Reagan at 22nd best, be out-rated by Obama? It may be close.

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd.

 

[S.J.]

Obama will be tied with Carter for last place.

 

[Rshermr]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15095310, member: 29707"]

="Rshermr, post: 15090272, member: 37424"]

This country was already headed in recession when he took over. Says who? Got a link?

.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I do. Says history, dipshit.
Uh, as your own source graph shows, the economy as measured by gdp was on an upswing in 1980, and in fact reached 1979's highest level in 1980. That would be, me boy, 23 years before 2003. You see, by 2003, gdp had doubled. dipshit.

The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980,
Uh, here is a clue. GDP was increasing under Carter. It had never dropped by any great amount at all during his time. And, unemployment was steady in the last couple years. Here are the numbers proving you WRONG.
Quarter GDP
Dec 31, 1983 7.00 trillion
Sep 30, 1983 6.86 trillion
Jun 30, 1983 6.73 trillion
Mar 31, 1983 6.58 trillion
Dec 31, 1982 6.49 trillion
Sep 30, 1982 6.49 trillion
Jun 30, 1982 6.51 trillion
Mar 31, 1982 6.48 trillion
Dec 31, 1981 6.59 trillion
Sep 30, 1981 6.66 trillion
Jun 30, 1981 6.59 trillion
Mar 31, 1981 6.64 trillion
Dec 31, 1980 6.50 trillion
Sep 30, 1980 6.38 trillion
Jun 30, 1980 6.39 trillion
Mar 31, 1980 6.52 trillion
Dec 31, 1979 6.50 trillion
Sep 30, 1979 6.49 trillion
Jun 30, 1979 6.44 trillion
Mar 31, 1979 6.43 trillion



when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and It dropped under 2%, not 9,%. And it got back to a higher level by the end of 1980, It was on the upswing prior to and shortly after Reagan took office in January of 1981. did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. Hardly. If you look at the numbers they did not start down until the third quarter of 1981, and through 1982, As I have said from the start.

There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Sorry, again you are lying. They returned to 1979 numbers in 1980. By 2003, GDP had doubled. Sorry, but you are lying. Numbers are numbers. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982. Yes, at the peak of the Reagan Recession. Up from 7.3% over the past year.


As can be seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. Wrong. The ue rate was not rising between Carter and Reagan admins. Carter left Reagan no recession, just an inflation issue. Unemployment was rising like a rocket prior to Obama taking office. Over 500,000 jobs per month being lost. (The numbers are almost identical.) No they were not. But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.
Truth is, inflation was not in double digits for Reagan, and never was. And it was ended quickly after Reagan brought on a democrat to fix the problem. Unemployment was not moving upward for Reagan. It was going up like a rocket for Obama. Reagan caused his own recession. Obama inherited one.
Here is expert knowledge of the Reagan Recession:
"In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession"
"...period of growth, were followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987.
Reagan’s Recession

So, there you go. The great Reagan Recession began in late 1981. And reached it's hight in late 1982. As I said.

The worst recession? The deepest was Reagans. The worst was the great republican recession of 2008. Not quite as deep, but a very difficult aggregate demand recession which Republicans refused to help with and that was headed toward Depression.

That's why he enacted the tax cut and future ones as well. Sorry, there was no recession coming until months after his tax cut which occurred in early 1981.

Revenues declined. Which is why you can not, again, provide a link.
[

Of course I can. Unlike you I don't spout shit I don't know or understand.

US Government 20th Century Revenue History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentrevenue.com briefing

The chart clearly indicates the rise in federal revenues in the years following Kennedy's, Reagan's, and Bush's income tax cuts. But not because of those tax cuts. Nonsense.

I do not disapprove of tax cuts, or of raising taxes. And they generally do no harm.. And they generally help a little in economic good times. So my study of the subject would say. What often happens when the economy is weak is that tax cuts cause the gov to cancel programs, putting people out of work

The government doesn't put people to work. It pulls money out of the economy that could be used for expansion or innovation. It is a net negative in the long term.
Sorry. Are you just trying to prove you have no clue? You see, politicians do not like deficits, though they tend to have them normally. So, in order to do something that costs dollars, they try to balance the budget with tax cuts. Problem is, if you have a tax cut, you either have to watch as the deficit increases, or you have to shut down programs. When you shut down programs, you fire people. And they stop paying taxes, raising the deficit. Simple and easy to watch happen. As it did in 1981.

Keynesian theory sounds good, and it would be nice if it made sense, but it has a rather glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. Ah, but indeed they can. That is YOUR fallacy. They can increase taxes, or they can simply sell bonds. More specifically, the theory only looks at one-half of the equation — the part where government puts money in the economy’s right pocket. But where does the government get that money? Jesus, that was a stupid question. Read my comment above. Really, me boy, this should not be so difficult for you. It borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy’s left pocket. Does being that stupid hurt, dipshit. They create bonds, and sell those bonds. It increases debt, but takes nothing out of the economy. Is this just too difficult for you? There is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand. Yes, there is. That is the whole reason for increasing gov spending, me poor ignorant con troll. Keynesianism doesn’t boost national income, it merely redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it’s not any bigger. Wow. What comic book are you reading now. Oh yeah, you have been reading those con talking points again.

The real world evidence also shows that Keynesianism does not work. Actually, it shows it did. Herbert Hoover did not implement Keynesian programs. Roosevelt did, and achieved a decrease in unemployment of 12%, more than under any other president in history. and Roosevelt dramatically increased spending, and neither showed any aversion to running up big deficits, yet the economy was terrible all through the 1930s. Uh, me poor ignorant con, he did not take over the presidency untillRepublican presidents started the Depression in 1929 and watched as unemployment went from 3% to 25% prior to FDR starting to fix the mess starting withhis presidency in 1933. Keynesian stimulus schemes also were tried by Gerald Ford and George W. Bush the only "keynesian" policies under either Ford or George W. Gush were tax rebates. Which are a lesser known policy within Keynesian economics. Neither used stimulus proceedures, however. But he and had no impact on the economy. Keynesianism also failed in Japan during the 1990s. No, it did not.

The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs

Wow. So this is where you got your talking points. As suspected a bat shit crazy con source. No wonder you have it all wrong. Poor you.

 

[Rshermr]

Will Reagan at 22nd best, be out-rated by Obama? It may be close.

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd.

Ah, but you are missing a link for proof. I think he is number 3. Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929. And a do nothing republican congress.

 

[Rshermr]

Obama will be tied with Carter for last place.

And you will be tied for 1st for stupidity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Will Reagan at 22nd best, be out-rated by Obama? It may be close.

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd.

Ah, but you are missing a link for proof. I think he is number 3. Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929. And a do nothing republican congress.

I think he is number 3.

Third worst sounds likely.

Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929.

The recession that ended in June 2009?
What wonders did he do to end such a deep recession, 6 months into his term?

And a do nothing republican congress.

He had huge majorities when he took office.
Why would he need Republicans for anything?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980,
Uh, here is a clue. GDP was increasing under Carter. It had never dropped by any great amount at all during his time. And, unemployment was steady in the last couple years. Here are the numbers proving you WRONG.
Quarter GDP
Dec 31, 1983 7.00 trillion
Sep 30, 1983 6.86 trillion
Jun 30, 1983 6.73 trillion
Mar 31, 1983 6.58 trillion
Dec 31, 1982 6.49 trillion
Sep 30, 1982 6.49 trillion
Jun 30, 1982 6.51 trillion
Mar 31, 1982 6.48 trillion
Dec 31, 1981 6.59 trillion
Sep 30, 1981 6.66 trillion
Jun 30, 1981 6.59 trillion
Mar 31, 1981 6.64 trillion
Dec 31, 1980 6.50 trillion
Sep 30, 1980 6.38 trillion
Jun 30, 1980 6.39 trillion
Mar 31, 1980 6.52 trillion
Dec 31, 1979 6.50 trillion
Sep 30, 1979 6.49 trillion
Jun 30, 1979 6.44 trillion
Mar 31, 1979 6.43 trillion



when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and It dropped under 2%, not 9,%. And it got back to a higher level by the end of 1980, It was on the upswing prior to and shortly after Reagan took office in January of 1981. did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. Hardly. If you look at the numbers they did not start down until the third quarter of 1981, and through 1982, As I have said from the start.

There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Sorry, again you are lying. They returned to 1979 numbers in 1980. By 2003, GDP had doubled. Sorry, but you are lying. Numbers are numbers. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982. Yes, at the peak of the Reagan Recession. Up from 7.3% over the past year.


As can be seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. Wrong. The ue rate was not rising between Carter and Reagan admins. Carter left Reagan no recession, just an inflation issue. Unemployment was rising like a rocket prior to Obama taking office. Over 500,000 jobs per month being lost. (The numbers are almost identical.) No they were not. But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.
Truth is, inflation was not in double digits for Reagan, and never was. And it was ended quickly after Reagan brought on a democrat to fix the problem. Unemployment was not moving upward for Reagan. It was going up like a rocket for Obama. Reagan caused his own recession. Obama inherited one.
Here is expert knowledge of the Reagan Recession:
"In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession"
"...period of growth, were followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987.
Reagan’s Recession

So, there you go. The great Reagan Recession began in late 1981. And reached it's hight in late 1982. As I said.

The worst recession? The deepest was Reagans. The worst was the great republican recession of 2008. Not quite as deep, but a very difficult aggregate demand recession which Republicans refused to help with and that was headed toward Depression.

That's why he enacted the tax cut and future ones as well. Sorry, there was no recession coming until months after his tax cut which occurred in early 1981.

Revenues declined. Which is why you can not, again, provide a link.
[

Of course I can. Unlike you I don't spout shit I don't know or understand.

US Government 20th Century Revenue History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentrevenue.com briefing

The chart clearly indicates the rise in federal revenues in the years following Kennedy's, Reagan's, and Bush's income tax cuts. But not because of those tax cuts. Nonsense.

I do not disapprove of tax cuts, or of raising taxes. And they generally do no harm.. And they generally help a little in economic good times. So my study of the subject would say. What often happens when the economy is weak is that tax cuts cause the gov to cancel programs, putting people out of work

The government doesn't put people to work. It pulls money out of the economy that could be used for expansion or innovation. It is a net negative in the long term.
Sorry. Are you just trying to prove you have no clue? You see, politicians do not like deficits, though they tend to have them normally. So, in order to do something that costs dollars, they try to balance the budget with tax cuts. Problem is, if you have a tax cut, you either have to watch as the deficit increases, or you have to shut down programs. When you shut down programs, you fire people. And they stop paying taxes, raising the deficit. Simple and easy to watch happen. As it did in 1981.

Keynesian theory sounds good, and it would be nice if it made sense, but it has a rather glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. Ah, but indeed they can. That is YOUR fallacy. They can increase taxes, or they can simply sell bonds. More specifically, the theory only looks at one-half of the equation — the part where government puts money in the economy’s right pocket. But where does the government get that money? Jesus, that was a stupid question. Read my comment above. Really, me boy, this should not be so difficult for you. It borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy’s left pocket. Does being that stupid hurt, dipshit. They create bonds, and sell those bonds. It increases debt, but takes nothing out of the economy. Is this just too difficult for you? There is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand. Yes, there is. That is the whole reason for increasing gov spending, me poor ignorant con troll. Keynesianism doesn’t boost national income, it merely redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it’s not any bigger. Wow. What comic book are you reading now. Oh yeah, you have been reading those con talking points again.

The real world evidence also shows that Keynesianism does not work. Actually, it shows it did. Herbert Hoover did not implement Keynesian programs. Roosevelt did, and achieved a decrease in unemployment of 12%, more than under any other president in history. and Roosevelt dramatically increased spending, and neither showed any aversion to running up big deficits, yet the economy was terrible all through the 1930s. Uh, me poor ignorant con, he did not take over the presidency untillRepublican presidents started the Depression in 1929 and watched as unemployment went from 3% to 25% prior to FDR starting to fix the mess starting withhis presidency in 1933. Keynesian stimulus schemes also were tried by Gerald Ford and George W. Bush the only "keynesian" policies under either Ford or George W. Gush were tax rebates. Which are a lesser known policy within Keynesian economics. Neither used stimulus proceedures, however. But he and had no impact on the economy. Keynesianism also failed in Japan during the 1990s. No, it did not.

The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs

Wow. So this is where you got your talking points. As suspected a bat shit crazy con source. No wonder you have it all wrong. Poor you.

Look, dumb fuck, all of those paragraphs that are italicized are not my words. They are quotes straight out of publications discussion the 1980 recession.

You don't know what you're talking so why don't you go run along and play in the street.

 

[regent]

This country was already headed in recession when he took over. Says who? Got a link?

Yeah, I do. Says history, dipshit.

The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982.

As can be seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.

The worst recession?

That's why he enacted the tax cut and future ones as well. Sorry, there was no recession coming until months after his tax cut.

Liar

Investments in fixed income (both bonds held by Wall Street and pensions paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable in real terms, and on March 14, 1980, President Carter announced the first credit control measures since World War II.[77]

The policy, as well as record interest rates, would lead to a sharp recession in the spring of 1980.[78] The sudden fall in GDP during the second quarter caused unemployment to jump from 6% to 7.5% by May, with output in the auto and housing sectors falling by over 20% and to their weakest level since the 1975 recession.[61] Carter phased out credit controls in May, and by July, the prime rate had fallen to 11%,[75] with inflation breaking the earlier trend and easing to under 13% for the remainder of 1980.[79] The V-shaped recession coincided with Carter's re-election campaign, however, and contributed to his unexpectedly severe loss.[71]

Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revenues declined. Which is why you can not, again, provide a link.

Of course I can. Unlike you I don't spout shit I don't know or understand.

US Government 20th Century Revenue History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentrevenue.com briefing

The chart clearly indicates the rise in federal revenues in the years following Kennedy's, Reagan's, and Bush's income tax cuts.

I do not disapprove of tax cuts, or of raising taxes. And they generally do no harm.. And they generally help a little in economic good times. So my study of the subject would say. What often happens when the economy is weak is that tax cuts cause the gov to cancel programs, putting people out of work

The government doesn't put people to work. It pulls money out of the economy that could be used for expansion or innovation. It is a net negative in the long term.

Keynesian theory sounds good, and it would be nice if it made sense, but it has a rather glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. More specifically, the theory only looks at one-half of the equation — the part where government puts money in the economy’s right pocket. But where does the government get that money? It borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy’s left pocket. There is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand. Keynesianism doesn’t boost national income, it merely redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it’s not any bigger.

The real world evidence also shows that Keynesianism does not work. Both Hoover and Roosevelt dramatically increased spending, and neither showed any aversion to running up big deficits, yet the economy was terrible all through the 1930s. Keynesian stimulus schemes also were tried by Gerald Ford and George W. Bush and had no impact on the economy. Keynesianism also failed in Japan during the 1990s.

The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs

So what do people who work for the government call it, if not job?l

 

[Rshermr]

Will Reagan at 22nd best, be out-rated by Obama? It may be close.

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd.

Ah, but you are missing a link for proof. I think he is number 3. Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929. And a do nothing republican congress.

I think he is number 3.

Third worst sounds likely.
Hardly. But then, you are a con troll. Must be a sad existence. Whatever the con talking points say, you believe and do as you are told. Sad.

Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929.

The recession that ended in June 2009?
What wonders did he do to end such a deep recession, 6 months into his term?
Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against. But could not do anything at all after Kennedy died.

And a do nothing republican congress.

He had huge majorities when he took office.
Why would he need Republicans for anything?

Did not, and the stimulus he passed ended the recession republicans had started. Check on the proceedure for getting bills passed, and see if you can understand them. And try real hard to understand why a lack of a majority stops you from accomplishing anything. if the opposing congress refuses to pass any bill you want to help the people of the country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama will be remembered for the records he set: debt, deficits, poverty, people out of the workforce and biggest program fail ever: Obamacare

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Will Reagan at 22nd best, be out-rated by Obama? It may be close.

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd.

Ah, but you are missing a link for proof. I think he is number 3. Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929. And a do nothing republican congress.

I think he is number 3.

Third worst sounds likely.
Hardly. But then, you are a con troll. Must be a sad existence. Whatever the con talking points say, you believe and do as you are told. Sad.

Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929.

The recession that ended in June 2009?
What wonders did he do to end such a deep recession, 6 months into his term?
Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against. But could not do anything at all after Kennedy died.

And a do nothing republican congress.

He had huge majorities when he took office.
Why would he need Republicans for anything?

Did not, and the stimulus he passed ended the recession republicans had started. Check on the proceedure for getting bills passed, and see if you can understand them. And try real hard to understand why a lack of a majority stops you from accomplishing anything. if the opposing congress refuses to pass any bill you want to help the people of the country.

Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against.

How much was spent by June 2009?

He had huge majorities when he took office.

Did not

Did too. 58 in the Senate until Specter defected in April to make it 59. Franken sworn in in July made it 60.
257 seats in the House.

And try real hard to understand why a lack of a majority stops you from accomplishing anything.

Huge Dem majorities isn't "a lack of a majority".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama will be remembered for the records he set: debt, deficits, poverty, people out of the workforce and biggest program fail ever: Obamacare

Don't forget setting back race relations 50 years.

 

[Rshermr]

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd.[/QUOTE]
Ah, but you are missing a link for proof. I think he is number 3. Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929. And a do nothing republican congress.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

I think he is number 3.

Third worst sounds likely.
Hardly. But then, you are a con troll. Must be a sad existence. Whatever the con talking points say, you believe and do as you are told. Sad.

Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929.

The recession that ended in June 2009?
What wonders did he do to end such a deep recession, 6 months into his term?
Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against. But could not do anything at all after Kennedy died.

And a do nothing republican congress.

He had huge majorities when he took office.
Why would he need Republicans for anything?

Did not make any difference. Because repubs had the ability to filibuster after the first 14 weeks, and did so for every single bill they did not like, including all jobs bills brought up by dems. The stimulus he passed ended the recession republicans had started. Check on the proceedure for getting bills passed, and see if you can understand them. And try real hard to understand why a lack of a filibuster proof majority stops you from accomplishing anything. if the opposing congress refuses to pass any bill you want to help the people of the country. [/QUOTE]

Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against.

How much was spent by June 2009?
Makes no difference. How many jobs did he save?

He had huge majorities when he took office.
The truth (look it up) is that he had a filibuster proof majority for ONLY his first14 months.
The truth is republicans simply filibustered every jobs bill Obama brought up.
Simple. Do nothing congress.

Did not

Did too. 58 in the Senate until Specter defected in April to make it 59. Franken sworn in in July made it 60.
257 seats in the House.

And try real hard to understand why a lack of a majority stops you from accomplishing anything.

Huge Dem majorities isn't "a lack of a majority"
Correct. But it was not filibuster proof. And republicans filibustered every single jobs bill brought up by dems and Obama. Same difference for republicans who used the filibuster a record number of times and stopped every single important jobs bill. Which many see as un-american. Because they cared only for political capital, and not at all for the working person.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd. Ah but you are missing a link for proof. I think he is number 3. Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929. And a do nothing republican congress

I think he is number 3.

Third worst sounds likely.
Hardly. But then, you are a con troll. Must be a sad existence. Whatever the con talking points say, you believe and do as you are told. Sad.

Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929.

The recession that ended in June 2009?
What wonders did he do to end such a deep recession, 6 months into his term?
Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against. But could not do anything at all after Kennedy died.

And a do nothing republican congress.

He had huge majorities when he took office.
Why would he need Republicans for anything?

Did not make any difference. Because repubs had the ability to filibuster after the first 14 weeks, and did so for every single bill they did not like, including all jobs bills brought up by dems. The stimulus he passed ended the recession republicans had started. Check on the proceedure for getting bills passed, and see if you can understand them. And try real hard to understand why a lack of a filibuster proof majority stops you from accomplishing anything. if the opposing congress refuses to pass any bill you want to help the people of the country.

Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against.

How much was spent by June 2009?
Makes no difference. How many jobs did he save?

He had huge majorities when he took office.
The truth (look it up) is that he had a filibuster proof majority for ONLY his first14 months.
The truth is republicans simply filibustered every jobs bill Obama brought up.
Simple. Do nothing congress.

Did not

Did too. 58 in the Senate until Specter defected in April to make it 59. Franken sworn in in July made it 60.
257 seats in the House.

And try real hard to understand why a lack of a majority stops you from accomplishing anything.

Huge Dem majorities isn't "a lack of a majority"
Correct. But it was not filibuster proof. And republicans filibustered every single jobs bill brought up by dems and Obama. Same difference for republicans who used the filibuster a record number of times and stopped every single important jobs bill. Which many see as un-american. Because they cared only for political capital, and not at all for the working person.

How much was spent by June 2009?

Makes no difference.

If he ended the worst recession ever, in less than 6 months, but only spent $100 billion to do it, maybe it wasn't the worst recession ever?

Or did the recession end just because of the wonderfulness of Barack?
No stimulus needed? Kind of like the rest of the world was going to magically like us.....after he took office.

Correct. But it was not filibuster proof.

Smartest President ever and he couldn't negotiate well enough to get a single Republican Senator? Hmmmmm

 

[Rshermr]

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd. Ah but you are missing a link for proof. I think he is number 3. Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929. And a do nothing republican congress

I think he is number 3.

Third worst sounds likely.
Hardly. But then, you are a con troll. Must be a sad existence. Whatever the con talking points say, you believe and do as you are told. Sad.

Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929.

The recession that ended in June 2009?
What wonders did he do to end such a deep recession, 6 months into his term?
Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against. But could not do anything at all after Kennedy died.

And a do nothing republican congress.

He had huge majorities when he took office.
Why would he need Republicans for anything?

Did not make any difference. Because repubs had the ability to filibuster after the first 14 weeks, and did so for every single bill they did not like, including all jobs bills brought up by dems. The stimulus he passed ended the recession republicans had started. Check on the proceedure for getting bills passed, and see if you can understand them. And try real hard to understand why a lack of a filibuster proof majority stops you from accomplishing anything. if the opposing congress refuses to pass any bill you want to help the people of the country.

Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against.

How much was spent by June 2009?
Makes no difference. How many jobs did he save?

He had huge majorities when he took office.
The truth (look it up) is that he had a filibuster proof majority for ONLY his first14 months.
The truth is republicans simply filibustered every jobs bill Obama brought up.
Simple. Do nothing congress.

Did not

Did too. 58 in the Senate until Specter defected in April to make it 59. Franken sworn in in July made it 60.
257 seats in the House.

And try real hard to understand why a lack of a majority stops you from accomplishing anything.

Huge Dem majorities isn't "a lack of a majority"
Correct. But it was not filibuster proof. And republicans filibustered every single jobs bill brought up by dems and Obama. Same difference for republicans who used the filibuster a record number of times and stopped every single important jobs bill. Which many see as un-american. Because they cared only for political capital, and not at all for the working person.

How much was spent by June 2009?

Makes no difference.

If he ended the worst recession ever, in less than 6 months, but only spent $100 billion to do it, maybe it wasn't the worst recession ever?
Wow, sounds like a statement from a con troll. Like you, me boy. Totally bs, but lets get the word on it from some one that does not have an agenda like you have:
"Ben Bernanke, the former head of the Federal Reserve, said the 2008 financial crisis was the worst in global history, surpassing even the Great Depression.
His statement is raising eyebrows. While the "Great Recession" was scary, there's a reason it wasn't dubbed a depression: Bernanke's aggressive policy response."
2008 crisis: Worse than the Great Depression?
It was really, really serious, and was ended by strong efforts to do so. If we had had a republican president, there would have been NO stimulus, and a depression would probably have occurred, and would have lasted for many years.

Or did the recession end just because of the wonderfulness of Barack?
And again, from the con troll, comes a stupid comment. Just drivel, but very con troll like. But it did end because of the stimulus he instituted. As the CBO has stated.
No stimulus needed?
Another con troll dream. No stimulus needed. You must know, by now, that the CBO and nearly every impartial economists disagrees with you. CBO says he created 9.3 million jobs, which ended the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Kind of like the rest of the world was going to magically like us.....after he took office.
nothing magical about it. Just rational treatment. Simple, me boy.

Correct. But it was not filibuster proof.
Smartest President ever and he couldn't negotiate well enough to get a single Republican Senator? Hmmmmm
Yup. Exactly. Provably. No republican voted for any jobs bill brought forward by any democrat. For two obvious reasons.
1. The grover Norquist vow they all signed. Consider:
"Four years ago this week, all the Republican candidates for president were asked in a debate what would happen if they were presented a deal to tackle the federal deficit, and the deal would yield $10 in budget cuts for every $1 of tax increases. “Who on this stage would walk away from that deal?” asked Fox News’s Bret Baier. Every single one of them raised their hands, so deeply offensive did they find the notion of any tax increase at all, even one that would allow enormous progress on another goal they claimed to hold dear."
"In 2012, all candidates for the Republican nomination for president signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, with the lone exception of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Huntsman finished seventh in Iowa and third in New Hampshire before dropping out of the race.” So don’t get any ideas."
Nearly all the GOP candidates bow down to Grover Norquist
The Norquist pledge keeps any possible legislation costing anything at all in tax revenue from passing. It is seen by the citizenry of this country as Un-American.
2. The republican pledge on the night of Obama becoming president to block anything he brought forward before it could get to any chance of a vote.
So, republicans used two methods to stop legislating for our country except under the rules set forth for them by the hard, hard right. No integrity at all. None.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CBO says he created 9.3 million jobs, which ended the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

The recession ended in June 2009. He didn't create 9.3 million jobs by then.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While the "Great Recession" was scary, there's a reason it wasn't dubbed a depression: Bernanke's aggressive policy response."

Yeah, Bernanke gets the credit. Not Obama and his stimulus slush fund.


The major difference between the Wall Street crisis and the Great Depression is the way the Fed reacted.

While central bankers responded to the 1929 crash timidly and even by tightening monetary policy, Bernanke's Fed knew better.

Bernanke slashed rates lower than they've ever been in the U.S. and then pumped enough liquidity into the system to send the Fed's balance sheet swelling north of $4 trillion today, compared with less than $900 billion before the crisis.

The Fed expanded the money supply, instead of allowing it to shrink.
That's why the recession ended before a major part of the "stimulus" could be spent.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Obama will be at least 40th best. Maybe 42nd. Ah but you are missing a link for proof. I think he is number 3. Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929. And a do nothing republican congress

I think he is number 3.

Third worst sounds likely.
Hardly. But then, you are a con troll. Must be a sad existence. Whatever the con talking points say, you believe and do as you are told. Sad.

Overcame the worst recession since the great republican recession of 1929.

The recession that ended in June 2009?
What wonders did he do to end such a deep recession, 6 months into his term?
Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against. But could not do anything at all after Kennedy died.

And a do nothing republican congress.

He had huge majorities when he took office.
Why would he need Republicans for anything?

Did not make any difference. Because repubs had the ability to filibuster after the first 14 weeks, and did so for every single bill they did not like, including all jobs bills brought up by dems. The stimulus he passed ended the recession republicans had started. Check on the proceedure for getting bills passed, and see if you can understand them. And try real hard to understand why a lack of a filibuster proof majority stops you from accomplishing anything. if the opposing congress refuses to pass any bill you want to help the people of the country.

Passed a stimulus bill that every single republican voted against.

How much was spent by June 2009?
Makes no difference. How many jobs did he save?

He had huge majorities when he took office.
The truth (look it up) is that he had a filibuster proof majority for ONLY his first14 months.
The truth is republicans simply filibustered every jobs bill Obama brought up.
Simple. Do nothing congress.

Did not

Did too. 58 in the Senate until Specter defected in April to make it 59. Franken sworn in in July made it 60.
257 seats in the House.

And try real hard to understand why a lack of a majority stops you from accomplishing anything.

Huge Dem majorities isn't "a lack of a majority"
Correct. But it was not filibuster proof. And republicans filibustered every single jobs bill brought up by dems and Obama. Same difference for republicans who used the filibuster a record number of times and stopped every single important jobs bill. Which many see as un-american. Because they cared only for political capital, and not at all for the working person.

How much was spent by June 2009?

Makes no difference.

If he ended the worst recession ever, in less than 6 months, but only spent $100 billion to do it, maybe it wasn't the worst recession ever?
Wow, sounds like a statement from a con troll. Like you, me boy. Totally bs, but lets get the word on it from some one that does not have an agenda like you have:
"Ben Bernanke, the former head of the Federal Reserve, said the 2008 financial crisis was the worst in global history, surpassing even the Great Depression.
His statement is raising eyebrows. While the "Great Recession" was scary, there's a reason it wasn't dubbed a depression: Bernanke's aggressive policy response."
2008 crisis: Worse than the Great Depression?
It was really, really serious, and was ended by strong efforts to do so. If we had had a republican president, there would have been NO stimulus, and a depression would probably have occurred, and would have lasted for many years.

Or did the recession end just because of the wonderfulness of Barack?
And again, from the con troll, comes a stupid comment. Just drivel, but very con troll like. But it did end because of the stimulus he instituted. As the CBO has stated.
No stimulus needed?
Another con troll dream. No stimulus needed. You must know, by now, that the CBO and nearly every impartial economists disagrees with you. CBO says he created 9.3 million jobs, which ended the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Kind of like the rest of the world was going to magically like us.....after he took office.
nothing magical about it. Just rational treatment. Simple, me boy.

Correct. But it was not filibuster proof.
Smartest President ever and he couldn't negotiate well enough to get a single Republican Senator? Hmmmmm
Yup. Exactly. Provably. No republican voted for any jobs bill brought forward by any democrat. For two obvious reasons.
1. The grover Norquist vow they all signed. Consider:
"Four years ago this week, all the Republican candidates for president were asked in a debate what would happen if they were presented a deal to tackle the federal deficit, and the deal would yield $10 in budget cuts for every $1 of tax increases. “Who on this stage would walk away from that deal?” asked Fox News’s Bret Baier. Every single one of them raised their hands, so deeply offensive did they find the notion of any tax increase at all, even one that would allow enormous progress on another goal they claimed to hold dear."
"In 2012, all candidates for the Republican nomination for president signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, with the lone exception of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Huntsman finished seventh in Iowa and third in New Hampshire before dropping out of the race.” So don’t get any ideas."
Nearly all the GOP candidates bow down to Grover Norquist
The Norquist pledge keeps any possible legislation costing anything at all in tax revenue from passing. It is seen by the citizenry of this country as Un-American.
2. The republican pledge on the night of Obama becoming president to block anything he brought forward before it could get to any chance of a vote.
So, republicans used two methods to stop legislating for our country except under the rules set forth for them by the hard, hard right. No integrity at all. None.

Another con troll dream. No stimulus needed. You must know, by now, that the CBO and nearly every impartial economists disagrees with you. CBO says he created 9.3 million jobs,

So why was theses 9.3 million jobs, temporary, part time and most of the full time jobs went to the red states

America's part-time workforce is huge
April 25

NEW YORK


America has a huge part-time workforce problem.

And it's Worry Number One for Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen. She has talked about part-timers at each of her last three press conferences, at nearly every speech in the last six months and at both of her past two testimonies to Congress.

Yellen's worries stem from the fact that the part-time U.S. workforce is at "very high levels."


Excluding the Great Recession, the 6 million Americans who work part-time but want full-time jobs today are at the highest level in about 30 years or so.


America's part-time problem may be permanent

 

[Rshermr]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103022, member: 29707"]CBO says he created 9.3 million jobs, which ended the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

The recession ended in June 2009. He didn't create 9.3 million jobs by then.
Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103022, member: 29707"]CBO says he created 9.3 million jobs, which ended the Great Republican Recession of 2008.

The recession ended in June 2009. He didn't create 9.3 million jobs by then
.[/QUOTE] .[/QUOTE]
Are you really that ignorant? Oh, forgot. You are a con troll. You believe what you want to believe.
I should not be responsible for educating you. Because you are dishonest. You know that recessions do not end in all ways at the same time. Financially, scored by GDP, it ended in 2009. But employment ALWAYS lag. Typically for years. And when all republicans in congress vote against any jobs bill of import, it takes much longer. filibusters were the rule. So, yes, it took longer for jobs to return in the numbers they did. Thanks to the cons in congress.
Funny thing is that rational folk do not understand that for con trolls, the fact that they lie constantly is perfectly fine.