One Graph Says It All.

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Depends on who creates the graph and what information they used, now doesn't it?

The This-Says-It-All graph traces back to some guy named a.akamaihd's Facebook page. And it looks like the IJ Review, a blog, is where it was originally published by a guy named Fred.

The editor's first name is Bubba. Seriously. Bubba Atkinson.

Rabbit, if it wasn't for some rightwing blog, you wouldn't have anything to post.

 

[The T]

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

No... all we need to know is that Reagan had two degrees in economics, and obama is a little radical community organizer with zero experience at jack shit.

obama is a ideologue that has no ******* CLUE what he's doing as far as how to run a NATION. All he knows is how bad he wants to turn America into a communist shit hole, and he's doing it.

^This^

 

[JakeStarkey]

OP fail.

Close the thread and let's move on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.
]

Depends on who creates the graph and what information they used, now doesn't it?

The This-Says-It-All graph traces back to some guy named a.akamaihd's Facebook page. And it looks like the IJ Review, a blog, is where it was originally published by a guy named Fred.

The editor's first name is Bubba. Seriously. Bubba Atkinson.

Rabbit, if it wasn't for some rightwing blog, you wouldn't have anything to post.

Then you wont have any problem showing that the information in the graph is incorrect, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

OP fail.

Close the thread and let's move on.

/Starkey fail. Let's move on.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Wow, a bunch of leftist know nothings chiming in to prove my point they cannot read a chart.

Unlike you, I always check the sources first.

As with all polls, graphs, and studies, it's important to know who is paying for it and who they are using to gather the data and from where. Because usually whoever is paying for the data to be parsed is USUALLY going to get the result they are seeking.



I know you don't read, but this isn't really for you anyway:

From Forbes, whose editor is NOT named Bubba:

Obama vs Reagan Recovery: Right Comparison Wrong Conclusion
Obama vs Reagan Recovery: Right Comparison Wrong Conclusion - Forbes

When President Reagan assumed office, a strong headwind that had pushed the US economy into the 1981-82 recession turned into a tailwind. The price of oil, for instance, dropped from around $36 in 1982 to $12 by 1988 in current dollars; and from $70 to $20 in 2010 dollars.

By contrast, the price of oil increased from around $55 in 2008 to $90 by 2012 (in 2010 dollars). Also, the 1980s was a period when the rest of the world and most notably Japan and Europe enjoyed the bright side of globalization, stimulating rather than impending US economic growth, as has been the case in the last four years.

Second, when President Reagan assumed office, the Federal Reserve enjoyed a great deal of credibility. After bringing inflation under control during the Carter years with monetary tightening, Paul Volcker (appointed by President Carter and re-appointed by President Reagan) had plenty of room to reverse course, cutting short-term interest rates from around 20 percent in 1982 to around 6 percent in 1988!

When President Obama assumed office, the Federal Reserve was under severe criticism for doing very little to prevent the blowing of the sub-prime bubble. And it is still under criticism for launching several rounds of quantitative easing with dubious effects on the economy. Besides, the magnitude of interest rate cuts under President Obama’s Administration is much smaller than that under President Reagan’s Administration—A 4.5 basis-point decline in the Prime Rate under the Obama Administration versus a 13.5 basis-point under the Reagan Administration.

The two Presidents, however, share one thing in common: They both helped double the government deficit. President Reagan from 2 to 4 percent, while President Obama from 4 percent to 9 percent.

 

[The T]

Wow, a bunch of leftist know nothings chiming in to prove my point they cannot read a chart.

Masterpiece Rabbi, Masterpiece. Well done.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

"So this is the only TV show in America where I am quite confident that you, the audience, will share my excitement when I tell you that coming up in our next segment, we have the best graph ever. Best graph ever."
-Rachel Maddow

And I can clearly read that graph you posted. It shows, once again, the white conservatard scumbag better off from the start due to his white privilege, which pervades every single aspect of his life, even the economic conditions during his presidency. His bar goes up, up, up due to continued white privilege, and due to his higher starting point. President Obama, on the other hand, begins at a decidedly lower point, and his line goes down, down, down, due to the lack of white privilege, due to white racism, white oppression, and white anger at the very idea of an African-American serving his nation as its leader.

Apparently you don't quite understand the graph you yourself posted, so I'll make it simple for you: The economy during President Obama's term has been driven into the ground by white racists determined to see him fail. Despite this, it still hasn't completely tanked. Nice try, neo-Nazis.

/fail.

You're completely unhinged. I actually suspect you are a conservative Republican trying to discredit the fascist stupid dykes.

"durrrrr epic fale u n00b hurrr" is not an argument. Re-read my post, respond to the points I make, and try again.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

OP fail.

Close the thread and let's move on.

Oh no, Starkey. I'm more than willing to give Rabbit just enough rope to hang himself here. Always amusing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So what is the source of these statistics?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Say Rabbi, could you explain your graph? Exactly what is it saying? Does it go about explaining the difference in severity of the economic downturn or how many workers were effected or how many lives were dramatically changed?
Thanks in advance!

Pretty simple, even for you.
Reagan's policies involved permanently changing tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and reducing regulation growth.
Obama's policies involved temporary targeted tax credits, massive deficit spending, and crony capitalism.
We see which policy produced actual growth.

You understand that the more severe the downturn, the more robust the recovery, right?
Economist's View: Why There Is No ?V? Rebound This Time

More blogosphere bullshit. Reagan raised taxes 11 times.

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

It's certainly true that Reagan entered office as a full-throated conservative vowing to cut both spending and taxes. And he quickly followed through on part of that promise, passing a major reduction in marginal tax rates. (According to author Lou Cannon, the top marginal rate fell from 70 percent when he came into office to 28 percent when he left.)

But following his party's losses in the 1982 election, Reagan largely backed off his efforts at spending cuts even as he continued to offer the small-government rhetoric that helped get him elected. In fact, he went in the opposite direction: His creation of the department of veterans affairs contributed to an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency.

And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget."""""

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality - CBS News


Network news bureaus have to conform to FCC regulations, blogs do not. economistsview.typepad.com is a blog. Grow up.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what is the source of these statistics?

Ultimately BLS. There are fewer people working today than when Obama took office. By the same time in Reagan's terms there were many more people working.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So what is the source of these statistics?

Blogs. They are not held to any kind of standards for verification of anything.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So what is the source of these statistics?

Ultimately BLS. There are fewer people working today than when Obama took office. By the same time in Reagan's terms there were many more people working.

"Ultimately BLS". So publish the link to the exact information that corroborates your ultimate graph.

You're sucking wind badly here, Rabbit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Say Rabbi, could you explain your graph? Exactly what is it saying? Does it go about explaining the difference in severity of the economic downturn or how many workers were effected or how many lives were dramatically changed?
Thanks in advance!

Pretty simple, even for you.
Reagan's policies involved permanently changing tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and reducing regulation growth.
Obama's policies involved temporary targeted tax credits, massive deficit spending, and crony capitalism.
We see which policy produced actual growth.

You understand that the more severe the downturn, the more robust the recovery, right?
Economist's View: Why There Is No ?V? Rebound This Time

More blogosphere bullshit. Reagan raised taxes 11 times.

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

It's certainly true that Reagan entered office as a full-throated conservative vowing to cut both spending and taxes. And he quickly followed through on part of that promise, passing a major reduction in marginal tax rates. (According to author Lou Cannon, the top marginal rate fell from 70 percent when he came into office to 28 percent when he left.)

But following his party's losses in the 1982 election, Reagan largely backed off his efforts at spending cuts even as he continued to offer the small-government rhetoric that helped get him elected. In fact, he went in the opposite direction: His creation of the department of veterans affairs contributed to an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency.

And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget."""""

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality - CBS News


Network news bureaus have to conform to FCC regulations, blogs do not. economistsview.typepad.com is a blog. Grow up.

That does nothing to refute the information in the graph: Reagan's policies worked in increasing employment, Obama's failed.
And you fail, you ignorant little troll.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what is the source of these statistics?

Ultimately BLS. There are fewer people working today than when Obama took office. By the same time in Reagan's terms there were many more people working.

"Ultimately BLS". So publish the link to the exact information that corroborates your ultimate graph.

You're sucking wind badly here, Rabbit.

Please show the info is incorrect, that Obama has a better record of job creation than Reagan. It shouldn't be too hard, right?
/you suck.

 

[LiberalMedia]

/fail.

You're completely unhinged. I actually suspect you are a conservative Republican trying to discredit the fascist stupid dykes.

"durrrrr epic fale u n00b hurrr" is not an argument. Re-read my post, respond to the points I make, and try again.

No dumbass. Rabbi is Correct.

Prove it.

And YOU are a ******* RACIST.

Nice try, conservatard, but I know already know that. Every white "person," liberal or conservatard, is a racist. Simply being white is an act of racism. That's why I've dedicated countless hours to revitalizing minority neighborhoods, encouraging African-American voter turnout, protesting the discriminatory policies of actual racists in the Wrongpublican Party, supporting both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns of President Obama, and demonstrating on behalf of jailed "illegal" immigrants throughout the country, demanding their release.

I constantly check my white privilege because I'm so acutely aware of it. While as a white "person," racism is genetically embedded in me, I am verifiably the least racist someone of Euroscum descent can possibly be. Fact.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

No... all we need to know is that Reagan had two degrees in economics, and obama is a little radical community organizer with zero experience at jack shit.

obama is a ideologue that has no ******* CLUE what he's doing as far as how to run a NATION. All he knows is how bad he wants to turn America into a communist shit hole, and he's doing it.

^This^

Really? Sorry, nope just a BA in economics and sociology from Eureka College in 1932.

But don't feel bad, Sarah Palin botched this info even worse than you stating that it was Eureka College in Eureka, CA.

And by god, a BA from Eureka College beats anything from Harvard Law School and Columbia University any ol' day. Yeah.

 

[The Rabbi]

No... all we need to know is that Reagan had two degrees in economics, and obama is a little radical community organizer with zero experience at jack shit.

obama is a ideologue that has no ******* CLUE what he's doing as far as how to run a NATION. All he knows is how bad he wants to turn America into a communist shit hole, and he's doing it.

^This^

Really? Sorry, nope just a BA in economics and sociology from Eureka College in 1932.

But don't feel bad, Sarah Palin botched this info even worse than you stating that it was Eureka College in Eureka, CA.

And by god, a BA from Eureka College beats anything from Harvard Law School and Columbia University any ol' day. Yeah.

Actually when it came to policies that helped the economy the BA did beat the Harvard law degree.
Still waiting for proof Obama's policies produced more jobs than Reagan's.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Two lines on a graph do not, in fact, say it all.

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You are not out to inform but to persuade.

The overwhelming majority of Americans repudiate your tactics.

Step along.

Sorry, are you saying Americans like being unemployed?