Failures of Reaganomics

[Doubletap]

"America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more—and nothing less. The rest—everything that America achieved, everything she became, everything “noble and just,” and heroic, and great, and unprecedented in human history—was the logical consequence of fidelity to that one principle." --- Ayn Rand

 

[Listening]

Rubbish! See post # 77 and the OP.

Also, his low very tax policies ushered in a recession, and Clinton's 8 years top Reagan easily, even in his better earlier years. As for foreign policy, Reagan was a joke. See Post # 111.

You are living proof you can't fix stupid.

Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.

Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.

OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.

Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.

A really nasty recession ? ROTFLMAO

 

[protectionist]

But you're wrong. Obama asked for and received THREE rounds of stimulus packages and each time he said "we just didn't spend enough". That's literally as stupid as a person standing in a bucket and saying that they just didn't pull hard enough to pull themselves up

Corporate profits are high right now because Dumbocrats drove jobs overseas and countries such as China and India are benefiting from those American jobs. Had Dumbocrats not drive those jobs overseas, American's would be benefitting from those jobs and we would be out of this mess.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. Source? The stimulus created or saved 2.5 million jobs. The CBO, Moody, and JP Morgan all confirm this fact.

I am so sick of this blame democrats crap. Why don't you explain HOW democrats have anything to do with jobs going overseas? What the **** are you talking about? Are corporate profits not the entire point? What is stopping them from setting up jobs here?

I'm absolutely stupefied by the fact that you have to ask this question. How have Dumbocrats forced jobs overseas? What is stopping corporations from setting up jobs here?

Ignorant left-wing Dumbocrat communism is the answer. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That is an undeniable, indisputable fact.

Then we have bullshit like Obamacare which makes the cost of hiring employees skyrocket due to taxes, certain mandatory regulations, etc.

Then we have bullshit like unions which extort businesses and demand that a ****'n grease monkey turning a wrench on an assembly line make $25 per hour, plus a cadillac health care plan, plus an exorbitant retirement pension (gee, I wonder why GM needed many billions of unconstitutional government dollars to keep from closing their doors).

And of course, Dumbocrats are doing all of this while screaming "**** the 1%, lets punish those mother-fuckers". Cause, you know, that sends a great message to job creators.

So to recap, you crush job creators with taxes, you crush them with regulations, you crush them with unions, and then you slam them publicly and try to turn public opinion against them. And you guys stand around scratching your heads trying to figure out why there are never any jobs wherever liberal policy is in effect

Meanwhile, nations like China and India welcome them with open arms and provide them with extremely low taxes, no regulations, no unions, and no attempts to turn the public against them.

Is there somewhere in the middle of your tantrum, the fact that only the highest income recipient corporations (who can afford high taxes), have the highest corporate tax rate in the world ? And that those of lesser income pay lesser corporate tax rates ?

List of countries by tax rates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

You are living proof you can't fix stupid.

Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.

Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.

OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.

Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.

A really nasty recession ? ROTFLMAO

You heard right. A nasty recession. You deny it ?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231

 

[S.J.]

Rubbish! See post # 77 and the OP.

Also, his low very tax policies ushered in a recession, and Clinton's 8 years top Reagan easily, even in his better earlier years. As for foreign policy, Reagan was a joke. See Post # 111.

You are living proof you can't fix stupid.

Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.

Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.

OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.

Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.

This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. ******* amazing!

 

[protectionist]

You are living proof you can't fix stupid.

Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.

Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.

OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.

Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.

This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. ******* amazing!

What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.

2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.

3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.

I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.

 

[S.J.]

Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.

This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. ******* amazing!

What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.

2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.

3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.

I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.

My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.

 

[Indeependent]

This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. ******* amazing!

What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.

2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.

3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.

I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.

My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.

Very few people die from cancer the second they are diagnosed.
Reagan's policies, which would destroy our economy in the long run, did not begin to rear their ugly consequences until Senior Bush was in office.

 

[protectionist]

This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. ******* amazing!

What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.

2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.

3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.

I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.

My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.

First of all, it doesn't help you one iota to pretend that you think I'm dumb, and then post the dumbest stuff in the thread.

Secondly, since you appear to be incapable of following a thread from post to post, I guess I'll have to lay it out for you. The comment >> descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term, came from Post # 77 when I said >> "Here's what Reaganomics did for "George the First" >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231

Which was a response to GreenBean who said >> "Reagonomics took time to have its effects felt , Reagan Policies are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity sustained through much of the 80s - the administration of George the First and Slick WIlly the Cigar Peddler benefited from Reagonomics..."

So now you can go fight it out with GreenBean, and learn how to follow a thread, you baboon.

 

[protectionist]

What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.

2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.

3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.

I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.

My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.

Very few people die from cancer the second they are diagnosed.
Reagan's policies, which would destroy our economy in the long run, did not begin to rear their ugly consequences until Senior Bush was in office.

He knows that. He's playing dumb (while BEING dumb)

 

[P@triot]

What are you talking about ? What leads you to say I'm not thinking for myself ????

I suppose you mean other than the fact that you parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism????

What leads you to say that I parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism???? >> when my facts are from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Tax Policy Center, and White House Council of Economic Advisors, all from the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as other presidential administrations,

You called "Reaganomics" a "failure" when the facts prove otherwise. You're a radical liberal who (like most liberal loonies) pretends to be a Republican while parroting libtard talking points.

 

[S.J.]

What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.

2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.

3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.

I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.

My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.

Very few people die from cancer the second they are diagnosed.
Reagan's policies, which would destroy our economy in the long run, did not begin to rear their ugly consequences until Senior Bush was in office.

So, Clinton was responsible for George W. Bush's recession?

 

[P@triot]

What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.

2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.

3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.

I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.

My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.

Very few people die from cancer the second they are diagnosed.
Reagan's policies, which would destroy our economy in the long run, did not begin to rear their ugly consequences until Senior Bush was in office.

Thank you for proving that liberal policy is a cancer to America

• Dumbocrat FDR's Social Security is insolvent and killing us now
  
  
• Dumbocrat LBJ's Medicare & Medicaid is bankrupt and killing us now
  
  
• Dumbocrat Slick Willy Clinton's 1997 Community Re-investment Act collapsed our housing market and is killing us today
  
  
• Dumbocrats Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act will add $2 trillion to the deficit in only 10 years, is killing jobs now, and will be killing us worse in the future.

 

[S.J.]

I suppose you mean other than the fact that you parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism????

What leads you to say that I parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism???? >> when my facts are from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Tax Policy Center, and White House Council of Economic Advisors, all from the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as other presidential administrations,

You called "Reaganomics" a "failure" when the facts prove otherwise. You're a radical liberal who (like most liberal loonies) pretends to be a Republican while parroting libtard talking points.

Protectionist is what Josef Stalin called a "useful idiot".

 

[S.J.]

What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.

2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.

3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.

I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.

My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.

First of all, it doesn't help you one iota to pretend that you think I'm dumb, and then post the dumbest stuff in the thread.

Secondly, since you appear to be incapable of following a thread from post to post, I guess I'll have to lay it out for you. The comment >> descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term, came from Post # 77 when I said >> "Here's what Reaganomics did for "George the First" >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231

Which was a response to GreenBean who said >> "Reagonomics took time to have its effects felt , Reagan Policies are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity sustained through much of the 80s - the administration of George the First and Slick WIlly the Cigar Peddler benefited from Reagonomics..."

So now you can go fight it out with GreenBean, and learn how to follow a thread, you baboon.

I don't have to pretend, you prove it with each post.

 

[protectionist]

My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.

First of all, it doesn't help you one iota to pretend that you think I'm dumb, and then post the dumbest stuff in the thread.

Secondly, since you appear to be incapable of following a thread from post to post, I guess I'll have to lay it out for you. The comment >> descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term, came from Post # 77 when I said >> "Here's what Reaganomics did for "George the First" >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231

Which was a response to GreenBean who said >> "Reagonomics took time to have its effects felt , Reagan Policies are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity sustained through much of the 80s - the administration of George the First and Slick WIlly the Cigar Peddler benefited from Reagonomics..."

So now you can go fight it out with GreenBean, and learn how to follow a thread, you baboon.

I don't have to pretend, you prove it with each post.

You're not only dumb, you're nuts, as you've been consistently showing in the motorcyclist thread, as well as this one. Oh look, you got a thanks from Rottweiller. HA HA HA. As if you weren't bad off enough already.

 

[S.J.]

First of all, it doesn't help you one iota to pretend that you think I'm dumb, and then post the dumbest stuff in the thread.

Secondly, since you appear to be incapable of following a thread from post to post, I guess I'll have to lay it out for you. The comment >> descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term, came from Post # 77 when I said >> "Here's what Reaganomics did for "George the First" >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231

Which was a response to GreenBean who said >> "Reagonomics took time to have its effects felt , Reagan Policies are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity sustained through much of the 80s - the administration of George the First and Slick WIlly the Cigar Peddler benefited from Reagonomics..."

So now you can go fight it out with GreenBean, and learn how to follow a thread, you baboon.

I don't have to pretend, you prove it with each post.

You're not only dumb, you're nuts, as you've been consistently showing in the motorcyclist thread, as well as this one. Oh look, you got a thanks from Rottweiller. HA HA HA. As if you weren't bad off enough already.

Dude, I've lost count of how many times you've put your foot in your mouth. You're really not cut out for this debating stuff. Maybe you should take up knitting.

 

[protectionist]

I don't have to pretend, you prove it with each post.

You're not only dumb, you're nuts, as you've been consistently showing in the motorcyclist thread, as well as this one. Oh look, you got a thanks from Rottweiller. HA HA HA. As if you weren't bad off enough already.

Dude, I've lost count of how many times you've put your foot in your mouth. You're really not cut out for this debating stuff. Maybe you should take up knitting.

Dude , I have HANDED YOU YOUR ASS, HANDS DOWN, in this thread, even if you're too much of a fuckin idiot to know it.

Now, here's my suggestion for what to do with Reagan in 2014. I say we build a big statue of him, and put it on the White House front lawn (dressed in a circus clown outfit)

 

[P@triot]

You're not only dumb, you're nuts, as you've been consistently showing in the motorcyclist thread, as well as this one. Oh look, you got a thanks from Rottweiller. HA HA HA. As if you weren't bad off enough already.

Dude, I've lost count of how many times you've put your foot in your mouth. You're really not cut out for this debating stuff. Maybe you should take up knitting.

Dude , I have HANDED YOU YOUR ASS, HANDS DOWN, in this thread, even if you're too much of a fuckin idiot to know it.

Now, here's my suggestion for what to do with Reagan in 2014. I say we build a big statue of him, and put it on the White House front lawn (dressed in a circus clown outfit)

I find it remarkable that you declare victory in every thread when in fact you get your ass handed to you in every thread.

The fact is, Reagan's policies were some of the most successful in U.S. history and you're furious about that because it is a blueprint for getting people off of the government plantation (and you clearly love the freebies you have been able to bilk your fellow citizens out of). You're so angry because you fear the day you are required to hold a job and provide for yourself.

I'm going to block you now because you're an angry and immature asshole who is dumb enough to think he can convince people he is a "republican" while screaming for the most radical left-wing policies and parroting the extreme left-wing talking points.

 

[KNB]

Reagan sold weapons to terrorists. That's all that anyone needs to know about him.

**** Ronald Reagan, may he burn in Hell forever.