Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

[Wyatt earp]

"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]
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.[/QUOTE]

when all republicans in congress vote against any jobs bill of import,


Still trying to repeat the same lie and hope it sticks troll?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"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

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.

Financially, scored by GDP, it ended in 2009.

In June 2009. Obama barely had time to roll out his Muzzie prayer rug. LOL!
Let alone have an impact with his "stimulus".

Sorry that my factual posts make you cry....not really.

 

[Rshermr]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103060, member: 29707"]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.
What a surprise. Another con talking point from a con troll.
Untrue as normal. The economy not made up of just financial considerations. There is the whole issue of people working, trying to care for their families. Something that cons do not care about. Here you go, me boy. Do your best to understand:
"Fiscal policy was also more aggressive. Congress eventually approved the $700 billion TARP bank bailout followed by the $831 billion stimulus package in 2009.

"I think that it is fair to say that if the Fed and Treasury had done nothing and there had been no TARP to give them new tools, we could have been looking at a disaster that surpassed 1929-33," said Shafer.
2008 crisis: Worse than the Great Depression?

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.
Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

That's why the recession ended before a major part of the "stimulus" could be spent.
Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.
Sorry you are so confused. Or should I say, having to lie like crazy to get your agenda across? The financial crisis of wall street was ended by 2009. The unemployment part of the great republican recession continued on for another 3 years or so. This is a really simple thing, me boy. I know you want to politicize it in favor of republicans, but they did absolutely nothing of import. Just filibustered bills that could have helped main street. And caused millions to be unemployed longer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

Yup, without Obama's input.
TARP and the Fed fixed the recession.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.

How much was spent before June? LOL!

 

[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
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.

when all republicans in congress vote against any jobs bill of import,


Still trying to repeat the same lie and hope it sticks troll?
I know as a con troll, you will not understand when I say I never, ever lie. Because as a con troll, you routinely lie. Sorry, me boy. You are wrong again.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"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
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.

when all republicans in congress vote against any jobs bill of import,


Still trying to repeat the same lie and hope it sticks troll?
I know as a con troll, you will not understand when I say I never, ever lie. Because as a con troll, you routinely lie. Sorry, me boy. You are wrong again.

Says the libtard troll I proved it 10 Times in that thread

Just goes to show you can lead a libtard troll to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[Rshermr]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103398, member: 29707"]Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Yup, without Obama's input.
TARP and the Fed fixed the recession.
Wow. That was another stupid comment. Depends on how you want to define recession. The financial recession was not as affected by stimulus, the unemployment more by stimulus and less by financial measures. All three components helped. But after tarp, which got the backing of W, no republicans helped.
Relative to unemployment, stimulus was by far the most important.

 

[Rshermr]

"bear513, post: 15103591, member: 36770"]
post: 15103560, member: 37424"][QUO="bear513, post: 15103344, member: 36770"]"Rshermr, post: 15103217, member: 37424"]"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
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.[

when all republicans in congress vote against any jobs bill of import,


Still trying to repeat the same lie and hope it sticks troll?
I know as a con troll, you will not understand when I say I never, ever lie. Because as a con troll, you routinely lie. Sorry, me boy. You are wrong again.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]


Says the libtard troll I proved it 10 Times in that thread

Just goes to show you can lead a libtard troll to water but you can't make him drink
well, you did provide a couple bat shit crazy con sources. Agenda driven web sources that prove nothing, just push agenda. And you did prove nothing at all, except that you are delusional. A delusional con troll.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[rdean]

So, Ronald Reagan has been out of the presidency for over 25 years. But every day I here new changes to the history I lived through. And studied. So, what are the truths of Reagan, as opposed to the untrue stories made up to make him look good?
For instance, did anyone notice that the great reagan tax cut of 1981 led to the Reagan Recession of late 1982?
Did anyone notice that his 10.9% unemployment was the second worst recession in the history of the US?
Did anyone notice that he tripled the national debt?
Did anyone notice that Reagan spent more than all presidents before him combined?

Did anyone notice that he greatly increased the size of the federal government?
Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

Traded weapons for hostages.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103060, member: 29707"]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.
What a surprise. Another con talking point from a con troll.
Untrue as normal. The economy not made up of just financial considerations. There is the whole issue of people working, trying to care for their families. Something that cons do not care about. Here you go, me boy. Do your best to understand:
"Fiscal policy was also more aggressive. Congress eventually approved the $700 billion TARP bank bailout followed by the $831 billion stimulus package in 2009.

"I think that it is fair to say that if the Fed and Treasury had done nothing and there had been no TARP to give them new tools, we could have been looking at a disaster that surpassed 1929-33," said Shafer.
2008 crisis: Worse than the Great Depression?

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.
Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

That's why the recession ended before a major part of the "stimulus" could be spent.
Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.
Sorry you are so confused. Or should I say, having to lie like crazy to get your agenda across? The financial crisis of wall street was ended by 2009. The unemployment part of the great republican recession continued on for another 3 years or so. This is a really simple thing, me boy. I know you want to politicize it in favor of republicans, but they did absolutely nothing of import. Just filibustered bills that could have helped main street. And caused millions to be unemployed longer.

Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.

Parroting another out right lie? Lmao...
God Damn you are just an ignorant propaganda machine, full of opinions that you just pull out of your ass, huh, libtroll?


The stimulus was a ten-year package, $720 billion, or 91.5%, was budgeted for the first three fiscal years. It allocated $185 billion in FY 2009, $400 billion in FY 2010and $135 billion in FY 2011.


Obama's Stimulus, Five Years Later
Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the money on "stupid things." They ignored his advice, and so did Mr. Biden. The federal government poured billions into the government and education sectors, where unemployment was low, but spent only about 10% on promised infrastructure, though the unemployment rate in construction was running in double digits. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college "hookups."
In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% -- pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.
The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college "hookups."
In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% -- pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.
The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes

 

[Rshermr]

Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.

How much was spent before June? LOL!

Who cares, and why? Watch the juvenile LOL. Proves you to be, well, juvenile.

 

[Rshermr]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103060, member: 29707"]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.
What a surprise. Another con talking point from a con troll.
Untrue as normal. The economy not made up of just financial considerations. There is the whole issue of people working, trying to care for their families. Something that cons do not care about. Here you go, me boy. Do your best to understand:
"Fiscal policy was also more aggressive. Congress eventually approved the $700 billion TARP bank bailout followed by the $831 billion stimulus package in 2009.

"I think that it is fair to say that if the Fed and Treasury had done nothing and there had been no TARP to give them new tools, we could have been looking at a disaster that surpassed 1929-33," said Shafer.
2008 crisis: Worse than the Great Depression?

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.
Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

That's why the recession ended before a major part of the "stimulus" could be spent.
Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.
Sorry you are so confused. Or should I say, having to lie like crazy to get your agenda across? The financial crisis of wall street was ended by 2009. The unemployment part of the great republican recession continued on for another 3 years or so. This is a really simple thing, me boy. I know you want to politicize it in favor of republicans, but they did absolutely nothing of import. Just filibustered bills that could have helped main street. And caused millions to be unemployed longer.

Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.

Parroting another out right lie? Lmao...
No lie. Lies are intentional. I was off by a year. It was mostly spent in 2010. So you can stop doing your happy dance, me boy.


God Damn you are just an ignorant propaganda machine, full of opinions that you just pull out of your ass, huh, libtroll?
And more personal attacks.


The stimulus was a ten-year package, $720 billion, or 91.5%, was budgeted for the first three fiscal years. It allocated $185 billion in FY 2009, $400 billion in FY 2010and $135 billion in FY 2011.
Yes, mostly in 2010


Obama's Stimulus, Five Years Later
Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the money on "stupid things." They ignored his advice, and so did Mr. Biden. The federal government poured billions into the government and education sectors, where unemployment was low, but spent only about 10% on promised infrastructure, though the unemployment rate in construction was running in double digits. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college "hookups."
In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% -- pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.
The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the funded a study of college "hookups."
In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% -- pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.
The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes.

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.

 

[regent]

So no longer does America fight recessions/depressions with a balance-the-budget policy, but now with Keynes/FDR policy of government-spends-money.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So no longer does America fight recessions/depressions with a balance-the-budget policy, but now with Keynes/FDR policy of government-spends-money.

And it extended the FDR depression by 7 years and made the Obama economy the worst since FDR

 

[regent]

So no longer does America fight recessions/depressions with a balance-the-budget policy, but now with Keynes/FDR policy of government-spends-money.

And it extended the FDR depression by 7 years and made the Obama economy the worst since FDR

Yes, it took some time and experimentation to find the right answer.
The next problem to be solved is how to stop Republicans from starting recession/depressions. I would suggest not to let a Hoover type try to solve the problems for almost four years.
I wonder how Republicans thought balancing the budget would solve the problem?

 

[Rshermr]

So no longer does America fight recessions/depressions with a balance-the-budget policy, but now with Keynes/FDR policy of government-spends-money.

Also known as stimulus. By dems and republicans alike, up till Reagan. Then, the republicans signed pledges that stopped them from doing anything but watching, and extending recessions.

 

[Rshermr]

So no longer does America fight recessions/depressions with a balance-the-budget policy, but now with Keynes/FDR policy of government-spends-money.

And it extended the FDR depression by 7 years and made the Obama economy the worst since FDR

Yes, it took some time and experimentation to find the right answer.
The next problem to be solved is how to stop Republicans from starting recession/depressions. I would suggest not to let a Hoover type try to solve the problems for almost four years.
I wonder how Republicans thought balancing the budget would solve the problem?

they just wanted to believe. So badly.

 

[rdean]

Republicans create an economic mess and then criticize Democrats on how they fix the GOP caused problems while doing nothing to help fix their mess.

It seems like they want to drag down the country on purpose.

 

[Meathead]

So, Ronald Reagan has been out of the presidency for over 25 years. But every day I here new changes to the history I lived through. And studied. So, what are the truths of Reagan, as opposed to the untrue stories made up to make him look good?
For instance, did anyone notice that the great reagan tax cut of 1981 led to the Reagan Recession of late 1982?
Did anyone notice that his 10.9% unemployment was the second worst recession in the history of the US?
Did anyone notice that he tripled the national debt?
Did anyone notice that Reagan spent more than all presidents before him combined?

Did anyone notice that he greatly increased the size of the federal government?
Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

School yourself and find out why Reagan was America's last great president. I can't do it for you, but I will provide a link:

Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia