The damage done by the New Partisans

[Bfgrn]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

Yes, the Reagan recovery was caused by Volker
The overthrow of the Soviet Union came from the Pope.
Reagan was just a senile actor.
LOL! The Left is so desperate they say the stupidest things.

This guy was not from the "left"

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

There has also been a fervent revival of the old left-Keynesian idea that "deficits don't matter, anyway." Deficits are stimulating, we can "grow ourselves out of deficits," etc. The most interesting, though predictable, twist was that of the supply-siders, who, led by Professor Arthur Laffer and his famous "curve," had promised that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist, and the only propounder of his famous curve.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Bfgrn]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

Let's begin our examination of the real Reagan Legacy by taking a look at myth number one:

Democrats dominated Congress all through Reagan's terms, and called all his budgets Dead On Arrival.

That's numerically and historically false. Reagan's people shoved his program through the Congress during the early Reagan years. James A. Baker, David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O'Neill and the divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote. This is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-"Boll Weevil" (or "Dixiecrat") coalition in the House. Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most important Reagan budgets.

Only after the huge Reagan recession – made worse by utterly failed Reagan "Voodoo Economics" - did Democrats regain some control in Congress. They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn't do much on their own. That was a time of gridlock.

Six years into Reagan's presidency, Democrats took back the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan's horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics had "accomplished" quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.
Reagan Corruption

 

[Montrovant]

I only read the first few pages, but I loved this thread! An OP talking about the virulence of political partisanship followed by post after post of just that. Hilarious!

 

[The Rabbi]

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

Yes, the Reagan recovery was caused by Volker
The overthrow of the Soviet Union came from the Pope.
Reagan was just a senile actor.
LOL! The Left is so desperate they say the stupidest things.

This guy was not from the "left"

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

There has also been a fervent revival of the old left-Keynesian idea that "deficits don't matter, anyway." Deficits are stimulating, we can "grow ourselves out of deficits," etc. The most interesting, though predictable, twist was that of the supply-siders, who, led by Professor Arthur Laffer and his famous "curve," had promised that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist, and the only propounder of his famous curve.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Rothbard was a narco-libertarian. They are second cousins to Bolsheviks. IT doesnt get a lot more left than that.
Dumbshit.
You must be really butt hurt that you have to troll through crap like Murray Rothbard, who you probably never heard of before this, trying desperately to come up with something to refute what I write.

 

[The Rabbi]

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

Let's begin our examination of the real Reagan Legacy by taking a look at myth number one:

Democrats dominated Congress all through Reagan's terms, and called all his budgets Dead On Arrival.

That's numerically and historically false. Reagan's people shoved his program through the Congress during the early Reagan years. James A. Baker, David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O'Neill and the divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote. This is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-"Boll Weevil" (or "Dixiecrat") coalition in the House. Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most important Reagan budgets.

Only after the huge Reagan recession – made worse by utterly failed Reagan "Voodoo Economics" - did Democrats regain some control in Congress. They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn't do much on their own. That was a time of gridlock.

Six years into Reagan's presidency, Democrats took back the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan's horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics had "accomplished" quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.
Reagan Corruption

So you start off trying to debunk myths and end up proving they arent myths at all. Congress was dominated by Democrats.
You are a complete and total fail. Your blind hatred coupled with low information and stupidity make you look like an idiot.

 

[gipper]

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

Yes, the Reagan recovery was caused by Volker
The overthrow of the Soviet Union came from the Pope.
Reagan was just a senile actor.
LOL! The Left is so desperate they say the stupidest things.

This guy was not from the "left"

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

There has also been a fervent revival of the old left-Keynesian idea that "deficits don't matter, anyway." Deficits are stimulating, we can "grow ourselves out of deficits," etc. The most interesting, though predictable, twist was that of the supply-siders, who, led by Professor Arthur Laffer and his famous "curve," had promised that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist, and the only propounder of his famous curve.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Rothbard was a narco-libertarian. They are second cousins to Bolsheviks. IT doesnt get a lot more left than that.
Dumbshit.
You must be really butt hurt that you have to troll through crap like Murray Rothbard, who you probably never heard of before this, trying desperately to come up with something to refute what I write.

Rothbard a Bolshevik...more left....really?

You need to read Rothbard. He has absolutely NOTHING in common with big government loving leftists. He is the antithesis of leftism...unlike Reagan.

 

[Iceweasel]

I only read the first few pages, but I loved this thread! An OP talking about the virulence of political partisanship followed by post after post of just that. Hilarious!

Imagine that! A political discussion on a political message board. Who the fuck saw that coming?

 

[Bfgrn]

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

Let's begin our examination of the real Reagan Legacy by taking a look at myth number one:

Democrats dominated Congress all through Reagan's terms, and called all his budgets Dead On Arrival.

That's numerically and historically false. Reagan's people shoved his program through the Congress during the early Reagan years. James A. Baker, David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O'Neill and the divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote. This is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-"Boll Weevil" (or "Dixiecrat") coalition in the House. Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most important Reagan budgets.

Only after the huge Reagan recession – made worse by utterly failed Reagan "Voodoo Economics" - did Democrats regain some control in Congress. They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn't do much on their own. That was a time of gridlock.

Six years into Reagan's presidency, Democrats took back the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan's horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics had "accomplished" quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.
Reagan Corruption

So you start off trying to debunk myths and end up proving they arent myths at all. Congress was dominated by Democrats.
You are a complete and total fail. Your blind hatred coupled with low information and stupidity make you look like an idiot.

As the figure shows, Reagan and Bush senior got almost exactly the budgets they requested in each of their 12 budget years.

• Reagan:
• The first budget — passed by all Republicans and a few conservative Southern Democrats.
  • This increased the debt by $144 Billion.(1)
• The next 5 budgets — passed by the Republican Senate and signed by Reagan.
• The last 2 budgets — passed by a Democratic Congress
  • Totalled slightly less than Reagan requested.
• G. H. W. Bush:
• Democratic Congresses under Bush passed smaller budgets than he requested in 3 out of 4 years.
• These four Democratic budgets totalled $14.6 Billion less than Bush requested.
• G. W. Bush:
• The first two budgets — Senate was split 50/50 and the House was Democratic.
  • Bipartisan and totalled $20 Billion less than Bush requested.
  • The biggest cause of deficits was Bush’s enormous tax cut, mainly for the rich.
• The next 4 budgets — the Congress was solid Republican.
• The last 2 budgets — Bush vetoed(2) modest Democratic attempts at spending.

In summary: Democrats controlled Congress during 8 out the 20 years. During 4 of those years, Democrats decreased the budgets proposed by the Republican presidents. Their total effect during those 8 years was to reduce Republican budgets by $17 Billion (which is only 0.2%).

 

[Bfgrn]

 

[Bfgrn]

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

Yes, the Reagan recovery was caused by Volker
The overthrow of the Soviet Union came from the Pope.
Reagan was just a senile actor.
LOL! The Left is so desperate they say the stupidest things.

This guy was not from the "left"

The Myths of Reaganomics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard

I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.

Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.

Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.

Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.

One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.

There has also been a fervent revival of the old left-Keynesian idea that "deficits don't matter, anyway." Deficits are stimulating, we can "grow ourselves out of deficits," etc. The most interesting, though predictable, twist was that of the supply-siders, who, led by Professor Arthur Laffer and his famous "curve," had promised that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist, and the only propounder of his famous curve.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Rothbard was a narco-libertarian. They are second cousins to Bolsheviks. IT doesnt get a lot more left than that.
Dumbshit.
You must be really butt hurt that you have to troll through crap like Murray Rothbard, who you probably never heard of before this, trying desperately to come up with something to refute what I write.

The topic of the thread is partisanship. Let's recap Rabbi:

You claim Ike was a RINO, now Murray Rothbard was a Bolshevik...

There is no limit to the partisanship from the right. Today's conservatives revel in their partisanship, boast their refusal to compromise and ostracize anyone who doesn't march in lockstep to their doctrinaire and dogma. Any Republican who dares not to goose step is instantly a RINO or a Bolshevik.

Conservatives went as far as to propose a PURITY test. A TEST of their hyper-partisanship.

Conservative Republican Party activists want to withhold money from GOP candidates who stray too far from party orthodoxy.

Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test – calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ike was a RINO, Murray Rothbard was a Bolshevik...

What partisan attack will this guy receive from you?

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Bfgrn]

Even Reagan Wasn't a Reagan Republican
By Andrew Romano 5/9/10 at 8:00 PM

Courtesy the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

In the year and a half since Barack Obama was elected president, Republicans nationwide seem to have given up on the whole governing thing and chosen instead to play a long, rancorous game of “I’m More Conservative Than You Are.” They’ve been playing it in Utah, where incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett—lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 84—lost a primary battle this past weekend. They’ve been playing it in Florida, where moderate Gov. Charlie Crist was forced last week to abandon his bid for the Republican Senate nomination and run as an independent instead. And they’ve even been playing it on the national stage, where the RNC recently toyed with the idea of imposing a purity test on potential GOP candidates. Comply with eight of the party’s 10 “Reaganite” principles, the thinking went, and you’re worthy of funding. Fall short, and you might as well be Leon Trotsky.

Conservatives would claim that the Republican Party can only regain power by “returning to its roots” and banishing heretics. But a funny thing happened on the way to winning national elections again: the GOP has drifted so far right that it’s retroactively disqualified the only Republicans since 1960 who’ve actually managed to, you know, win national elections. Based on their public statements, policy proposals, and accomplishments while in office, none of the modern Republican presidents—not Richard Nixon, not Gerald Ford, not George H.W. Bush, not even Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush—would come close to satisfying the Republican base if they were seeking election today.

The point is not that these guys were liberals. It’s that the GOP is at risk of becoming so dogmatic that it would exclude even its most iconic members. Preemptively ruling out the sort of pragmatic policies that have worked in the past is a novel strategy, and it clearly plays to the passions of the moment. But unless the demographic evidence is wildly inaccurate and the country is, in fact, growing more and more right wing over time, it’s probably not a strategy that’s going to work particularly well in the future.


The RNC based its purity test on Ronald Reagan’s “principles”—chief among them a belief in “smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes.” But although the Gipper slashed taxes dramatically during his first year in office, the rest of his fiscal record directly violated the very rules the RNC created in his honor. During the Reagan years, federal employment grew by more than 60,000 (in contrast, government payrolls shrunk by 373,000 during Bill Clinton’s presidency). The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the U.S. transformed from the world’s largest international creditor to its largest debtor. After 1981, Reagan raised taxes nearly every year: 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 payroll tax hike even helped fund Medicare and Social Security—or, in terms today’s Tea Partiers might recognize, “government-run health care” and “socialism.”


RONALD REAGAN (1981–89)

Courtesy the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

• 
  Domestic Policy
  
  Were it enacted, the RNC’s Ronald Reagan purity test would’ve also put Reagan in the crosshairs for a number of his signature domestic policies. “Oppose Obama-style government run health care”? As governor of California, Reagan nurtured and eventually expanded Medi-Cal, the nation’s largest Medicaid program. Support “market-based energy reforms”? In California, Reagan established the Air Resources Board to intervene in the market and fight smog; as president, he signed more wilderness-protections laws than any president before or since. “Oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants”? In 1986, Reagan passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which eventually granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants, and he continued to speak out for immigration rights after leaving office. Support “the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership”? Actually, Reagan was a staunch backer of the Brady Bill, urging Congress in 1991 to “enact it without further delay.” To win the RNC’s blessing, according to the purity test, a candidate would’ve had to support eight of 10 so-called Reaganite principles. But Reagan himself wouldn’t have come close.
  
  Foreign Policy
  
  Foreign policy is where Reagan seems safest, at least at first glance. But despite his Cold Warrior bona fides, the Gipper still would’ve had a tough time pleasing today’s conservatives. For starters, he refused to send more troops to the region when Hizbullah murdered 243 U.S. servicemen in Beirut in 1983, choosing instead to immediately withdraw the Marines remaining in Lebanon. Now, that would be a violation of the RNC resolution requiring candidates to back “military-recommended troop surges” in the Middle East. And in 1981, Reagan condemned Israel’s preventive strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor, which doesn’t jibe with the RNC’s demand to “[support] effective action to eliminate th[e] nuclear weapons threat” in North Korea and Iran. Sure, Reagan may have ended the Cold War and all. But would it have been enough to win the Iowa caucuses?
  
  Social Views
  
  Reagan was born in 1911, and his social views were largely in line with midcentury norms. But compared to other conservatives—especially the evangelicals who helped elect him and still dominate the GOP base—his record on social issues while in office was remarkably undogmatic, especially for his time. In 1967, he signed a law in California that legalized millions of abortions. In 1978, he opposed California’s Proposition 6 ballot initiative, which would’ve barred gay men and women from working in public schools, and risked what his advisers predicted would be political suicide in taking to the airwaves to denounce it. Later, Reagan would become the first president to host an openly gay couple overnight at the White House. In 1981, he defied Jerry Falwell and other evangelical leaders by nominating Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. A moderate, she would go on, along with one of Reagan’s other nominees, Anthony Kennedy, to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. As Peter Beinart has put it, “Turns out this Reagan guy wasn’t really that Reaganite after all.”
  
  Purity Rating
  
  4/10
  
  Newsweek

 

[Papageorgio]

You can blame Obama for that one.

Face it dude. According to people like you (ODS sufferers) Obama can be blamed for everything. There is nothing that the all powerful Obama can't be blamed for. According to Obama Derangement sufferers.

Obama caused the sun to rise this morning but it wouldn't shine. Powerful stuff that Obama has. He can stop the tides if he wanted to. He can even make Ted Cruz look like an idiot. Oh wait a minute, Ted doesn't need Obama for that.

Democrats have been blaming Bush for every bad thing that has happened since WWII. You guys even blamed him for Katrina hitting the gulf coast.

And now you are getting your little panties in a knot.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You can blame Obama for that one.

Face it dude. According to people like you (ODS sufferers) Obama can be blamed for everything. There is nothing that the all powerful Obama can't be blamed for. According to Obama Derangement sufferers.

Obama caused the sun to rise this morning but it wouldn't shine. Powerful stuff that Obama has. He can stop the tides if he wanted to. He can even make Ted Cruz look like an idiot. Oh wait a minute, Ted doesn't need Obama for that.

Democrats have been blaming Bush for every bad thing that has happened since WWII. You guys even blamed him for Katrina hitting the gulf coast.

And now you are getting your little panties in a knot.

That is ridiculous.

 

[Papageorgio]

You can blame Obama for that one.

Face it dude. According to people like you (ODS sufferers) Obama can be blamed for everything. There is nothing that the all powerful Obama can't be blamed for. According to Obama Derangement sufferers.

Obama caused the sun to rise this morning but it wouldn't shine. Powerful stuff that Obama has. He can stop the tides if he wanted to. He can even make Ted Cruz look like an idiot. Oh wait a minute, Ted doesn't need Obama for that.

Democrats have been blaming Bush for every bad thing that has happened since WWII. You guys even blamed him for Katrina hitting the gulf coast.

And now you are getting your little panties in a knot.

That is ridiculous.

I think so to but people think it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You can blame Obama for that one.

Face it dude. According to people like you (ODS sufferers) Obama can be blamed for everything. There is nothing that the all powerful Obama can't be blamed for. According to Obama Derangement sufferers.

Obama caused the sun to rise this morning but it wouldn't shine. Powerful stuff that Obama has. He can stop the tides if he wanted to. He can even make Ted Cruz look like an idiot. Oh wait a minute, Ted doesn't need Obama for that.

Democrats have been blaming Bush for every bad thing that has happened since WWII. You guys even blamed him for Katrina hitting the gulf coast.

And now you are getting your little panties in a knot.

That is ridiculous.

I think so to.

Ah......the cuteness of your play on words! You've never heard or read anyone blame George Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. You said that because you are conditioned to say ridiculous things. You got tired of people blaming a guy you supported for things that he fucked up.....so you created this meme. In this way, you can deflect all responsibility for voting for him. You get to cry about how he's been victimized.

What you are witnessing with Obama is much different. Just look at the numbers and the results. His terms in office have seen vast improvement in most economic indicators and modest improvement in the rest. You've fallen victim alright. Victim of your own inability to see truth.

 

[Papageorgio]

You can blame Obama for that one.

Face it dude. According to people like you (ODS sufferers) Obama can be blamed for everything. There is nothing that the all powerful Obama can't be blamed for. According to Obama Derangement sufferers.

Obama caused the sun to rise this morning but it wouldn't shine. Powerful stuff that Obama has. He can stop the tides if he wanted to. He can even make Ted Cruz look like an idiot. Oh wait a minute, Ted doesn't need Obama for that.

Democrats have been blaming Bush for every bad thing that has happened since WWII. You guys even blamed him for Katrina hitting the gulf coast.

And now you are getting your little panties in a knot.

That is ridiculous.

I think so to.

Ah......the cuteness of your play on words! You've never heard or read anyone blame George Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. You said that because you are conditioned to say ridiculous things. You got tired of people blaming a guy you supported for things that he fucked up.....so you created this meme. In this way, you can deflect all responsibility for voting for him. You get to cry about how he's been victimized.

What you are witnessing with Obama is much different. Just look at the numbers and the results. His terms in office have seen vast improvement in most economic indicators and modest improvement in the rest. You've fallen victim alright. Victim of your own inability to see truth.

Google "Bush caused Katrina" environmentalists blamed his policies and every other nutter blamed Bush.

The economy failure was predicted by many economist in the 90's, I was actually surprised it didn't entirely collapse after 9/11. This is rehashing pages and pages of posts on this site. What you are witnessing with Obama is a cycle in the economy, the economy naturally ends and flows.

I'm not a victim of anything, your nutter friend was crying because people blame Obama, just stating that nothing has changed from the last President and guess what, the next President, the same will happen. It's call life.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Face it dude. According to people like you (ODS sufferers) Obama can be blamed for everything. There is nothing that the all powerful Obama can't be blamed for. According to Obama Derangement sufferers.

Obama caused the sun to rise this morning but it wouldn't shine. Powerful stuff that Obama has. He can stop the tides if he wanted to. He can even make Ted Cruz look like an idiot. Oh wait a minute, Ted doesn't need Obama for that.

Democrats have been blaming Bush for every bad thing that has happened since WWII. You guys even blamed him for Katrina hitting the gulf coast.

And now you are getting your little panties in a knot.

That is ridiculous.

I think so to.

Ah......the cuteness of your play on words! You've never heard or read anyone blame George Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. You said that because you are conditioned to say ridiculous things. You got tired of people blaming a guy you supported for things that he fucked up.....so you created this meme. In this way, you can deflect all responsibility for voting for him. You get to cry about how he's been victimized.

What you are witnessing with Obama is much different. Just look at the numbers and the results. His terms in office have seen vast improvement in most economic indicators and modest improvement in the rest. You've fallen victim alright. Victim of your own inability to see truth.

Google "Bush caused Katrina" environmentalists blamed his policies and every other nutter blamed Bush.

The economy failure was predicted by many economist in the 90's, I was actually surprised it didn't entirely collapse after 9/11. This is rehashing pages and pages of posts on this site. What you are witnessing with Obama is a cycle in the economy, the economy naturally ends and flows.

I'm not a victim of anything, your nutter friend was crying because people blame Obama, just stating that nothing has changed from the last President and guess what, the next President, the same will happen. It's call life.

Find me a known Democrat....or any USMB lib who blames bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Let's go.......put up or shut up.

Oh....the economy ebbs and flows! It just happened to be bad while your guy was POTUS! I get it. What's wrong with Kansas? What happened to the economies of Arizona and Alabama between 2010 and 2014? Natural ebb and flow?

 

[Iceweasel]

That's been discussed here many times since I've been here and no doubt much longer. That's only part of the picture, it wasn't just Reagan and national income went up. You have your head up your ass.

 

[Papageorgio]

Democrats have been blaming Bush for every bad thing that has happened since WWII. You guys even blamed him for Katrina hitting the gulf coast.

And now you are getting your little panties in a knot.

That is ridiculous.

I think so to.

Ah......the cuteness of your play on words! You've never heard or read anyone blame George Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. You said that because you are conditioned to say ridiculous things. You got tired of people blaming a guy you supported for things that he fucked up.....so you created this meme. In this way, you can deflect all responsibility for voting for him. You get to cry about how he's been victimized.

What you are witnessing with Obama is much different. Just look at the numbers and the results. His terms in office have seen vast improvement in most economic indicators and modest improvement in the rest. You've fallen victim alright. Victim of your own inability to see truth.

Google "Bush caused Katrina" environmentalists blamed his policies and every other nutter blamed Bush.

The economy failure was predicted by many economist in the 90's, I was actually surprised it didn't entirely collapse after 9/11. This is rehashing pages and pages of posts on this site. What you are witnessing with Obama is a cycle in the economy, the economy naturally ends and flows.

I'm not a victim of anything, your nutter friend was crying because people blame Obama, just stating that nothing has changed from the last President and guess what, the next President, the same will happen. It's call life.

Find me a known Democrat....or any USMB lib who blames bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Let's go.......put up or shut up.

Oh....the economy ebbs and flows! It just happened to be bad while your guy was POTUS! I get it. What's wrong with Kansas? What happened to the economies of Arizona and Alabama between 2010 and 2014? Natural ebb and flow?

Didn't realize you don't know how to use google. Sheehan who ran for Democratic office blamed Bush for Katrina, .

The rest of your bullshit I have been saying for over 20 years. In the 90's people were mortgaging homes at 125% of their value, they would payoff cars and trucks and credit card debt, then go out and do it again and again. Companies that never made a profit with stocks selling over a $100 a share? You didn't think somewhere in all that mess someone wasn't going to lose? Give me a break. I saw it back then and watched it until 2008 and wondered when and how it would end. I am willing to bet we don't learn from it either.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That is ridiculous.

I think so to.

Ah......the cuteness of your play on words! You've never heard or read anyone blame George Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. You said that because you are conditioned to say ridiculous things. You got tired of people blaming a guy you supported for things that he fucked up.....so you created this meme. In this way, you can deflect all responsibility for voting for him. You get to cry about how he's been victimized.

What you are witnessing with Obama is much different. Just look at the numbers and the results. His terms in office have seen vast improvement in most economic indicators and modest improvement in the rest. You've fallen victim alright. Victim of your own inability to see truth.

Google "Bush caused Katrina" environmentalists blamed his policies and every other nutter blamed Bush.

The economy failure was predicted by many economist in the 90's, I was actually surprised it didn't entirely collapse after 9/11. This is rehashing pages and pages of posts on this site. What you are witnessing with Obama is a cycle in the economy, the economy naturally ends and flows.

I'm not a victim of anything, your nutter friend was crying because people blame Obama, just stating that nothing has changed from the last President and guess what, the next President, the same will happen. It's call life.

Find me a known Democrat....or any USMB lib who blames bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Let's go.......put up or shut up.

Oh....the economy ebbs and flows! It just happened to be bad while your guy was POTUS! I get it. What's wrong with Kansas? What happened to the economies of Arizona and Alabama between 2010 and 2014? Natural ebb and flow?

Didn't realize you don't know how to use google. Sheehan who ran for Democratic office blamed Bush for Katrina, .

The rest of your bullshit I have been saying for over 20 years. In the 90's people were mortgaging homes at 125% of their value, they would payoff cars and trucks and credit card debt, then go out and do it again and again. Companies that never made a profit with stocks selling over a $100 a share? You didn't think somewhere in all that mess someone wasn't going to lose? Give me a break. I saw it back then and watched it until 2008 and wondered when and how it would end. I am willing to bet we don't learn from it either.

Give us the quite of Sheehan blaming Bush for Katrina hitting the gulf coast. Thanks.