Reagan vs Obama

[NYcarbineer]

These types of threads are ridiculous. First the OP is disingenuous. There were two recessions during Reagan's first term. Why doesn't the article key off the first recession instead of the second? Next, the recessions are very different. It is now widely acknowledged that inflation was broken by Volcker and the Fed, which was the main reason why interest rates came down, causing a tremendous tailwind for the economy. Reagan did some good things for certain, but he also benefited from forces of which were completely beyond his control. Finally, Reagan fired Volcker, the greatest Fed Chair in history and replaced him with Greenspan, the most incompetent Chairman in history, and the man most responsible for the mess we are in today.

I remember paying 1.32 a gallon for gas in 1981, and 88 cents a gallon in 1986. Reagan got a perfect storm of positive economic changes from 82 on that he had nothing to do with.

btw, anyone remember what the BIG economic complaint was, domestically, in the mid to late 80's?

LOL, a 'depression' in the 'Oil Patch', i.e., the domestic oil production business, because prices were so low.

 

[The T]

Friedman is a Statist Hack. Just like Obama, he thinks China has a better system.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Op-Ed Columnist - Our One-Party Democracy - NYTimes.com

Scary shit here...(And Obama and this creep want to make it happen here too)...

 

[boedicca]

I remember paying 1.32 a gallon for gas in 1981, and 88 cents a gallon in 1986. Reagan got a perfect storm of positive economic changes from 82 on that he had nothing to do with.

This is one of the MOST IGNORANT comments you have ever made.

Congrats!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Parental rights is why the kid was sent back.

When you come inbetween the most basic right to have your child you are a real partisan hack

Bravo!

Excellent, and may I say consistent, response from one who resents the possiblity that government fiat and power might be resisted by a system of checks and balances.

I couldn't have written lines better for you if my name was Stalin....or Clinton.

Did you read the courts decision?

Nope you didnt did you.

The court decided this and you pretend otherwise.

How dishonest of you

Ms.Truthie, you are making this far too easy- and far too much fun!

There was no court decision when the fascist-Democrat-Clinton-Reno-Holder troops wrenched the child from his relatives...as Holder admits in this interview:

"But regarding scrupulous legality, FoxNews’ Andrew Napolitano had (then Deputy) Attorney General Eric Holder’s number way back in April 23rd, 2000. Here it is thanks to The Media Research Center:

Napolitano: Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy (Elian Gonzalez)?
Holder: Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.

Napolitano: You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.
Holder: We didn’t need an order.

Napolitano: Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?
Holder: [Silence]

Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it. When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge…Unprecedented in American history.

Holder: He was not taken at the point of a gun.
Napolitano: We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun.

Holder: They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively…

Thanks to the ritual MSM-Castroite collusion most people forget (or missed) the crucial legal and ethical details of this circus/tragedy — which were mostly established during the first week after Elian’s rescue at sea, after his heroic mother’s drowning. The “son-belongs-with-his-father” crowd, for instance, “missed” (with the help of the MSM-Democratic complex) that Elian’s father was initially delighted that his motherless son was in the U.S. and in the loving arms of his uncles and cousins.
When Eric Holder Earned his Spurs (Elian Gonzalez, April 22, 2000)


So....did you fib to protect fascist interests, or where you simply ignorant?

'Fess up.

 

[Truthmatters]

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You lied again.




Elián taken by federal authoritiesAttorney general Janet Reno ordered the return of Elián to his father and set a deadline of April 13, 2000, but the Miami relatives defied the order. Negotiations continued for several days as the house was surrounded by protesters as well as police. The relatives insisted on guarantees that they could live with the child for several months and retain custody, and that Elián would not be returned to Cuba. Negotiations carried on throughout the night, but Reno stated that the relatives rejected all workable solutions. A Florida family court judge revoked Lázaro's temporary custody, clearing the way for Elián to be returned to his father's custody. On April 20, Reno made the decision to remove Elián González from the house and instructed law enforcement officials to determine the best time to obtain the boy. After being informed of the decision, Marisleysis said to a Justice Department community relations officer, "You think we just have cameras in the house? If people try to come in, they could be hurt."[14][15]


Elián González is removed at gunpoint from his relatives' home in Miami.In the pre-dawn hours of April 22, pursuant to an order issued by a federal magistrate, eight SWAT-equipped agents of the Border Patrol's elite BORTAC unit as part of an operation in which more than 130 INS personnel took part[16] approached the house; they knocked, and identified themselves. When no one responded from within, they entered the house. Pepper-spray and mace were employed against those outside the house who attempted to interfere. Nonetheless, a stool, rocks, and bottles were thrown at the agents.[17] In the confusion Armando Gutierrez called in Alan Diaz, of the Associated Press, to enter the house and entered a room with Elián, his great uncle's wife Angela Lázaro, her niece, the niece's young son, and Donato Dalrymple (one of the fishermen who had rescued him from the ocean). They waited in the room listening to agents searching the house. Diaz took a widely publicized photograph of a border patrol agent discovering Dalrymple and the boy hiding in a closet.

 

[Truthmatters]

Online NewsHour: Goodbye, Elian -- June 28, 2000


why do you think the scotus turned this one down?

 

[Rozman]

Reagan had a hostile congress, he had the senate for 4 ( I was wrong earlier I apologize) years,and he never had the house. By this same point in time after the recession ended, the economy had been ramped up and we were on the mend.

Reagan never had a "hostile" congress. They had good reason to impeach him..and didn't. Clinton's congress, had no ******* reason to impeach, and did.

Get it?

I thought Clinton lied under oath in a sworn deposition kinda thingie...?

/maybe it really isn't that simple!

 

[Toro]

These types of threads are ridiculous. First the OP is disingenuous. There were two recessions during Reagan's first term. Why doesn't the article key off the first recession instead of the second?

because he kept Volcker on and Reagan is responsible....and it had to be done. So he did it or that is allowed Volcker to do it....

Next, the recessions are very different. It is now widely acknowledged that inflation was broken by Volcker and the Fed, which was the main reason why interest rates came down, causing a tremendous tailwind for the economy. Reagan did some good things for certain, but he also benefited from forces of which were completely beyond his control. Finally, Reagan fired Volcker, the greatest Fed Chair in history and replaced him with Greenspan, the most incompetent Chairman in history, and the man most responsible for the mess we are in today.

yes, I don't think thats in dispute. krugman said same, and the point he made was that as well was that Reagan had such a deep ditch to dig out of a lot of that growth was almost presumptive....so?

and from an earleir post- as I said obama had a number of key advantages Reagan never had;

Not if you use comparative analysis. what was the debt vs gdp %ratio in 1986?

and some more comparisons;

Reagan never had a supra majority, he never had reconciliation majority, he had the senate for just 2 years, the house never, there by granting himself a blank check and the infusions of cash to do with what he pleased ala....


Its 21 months now, we are averaging 2.8%,in the end, we pay for results.

Don't get me wrong. I think Reagan was a good President. But the economic problems were very different from today. If you applied Reagan's policy prescriptions today, the results would be maybe a bit better that what we have but not much.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...s-2-5-million-jobs-lost.html?highlight=Reagan

 

[Trajan]

Who told you that?



But anyhow, if that's true, whose policy, leadership, and politics functioned to cause the Reagan recession, that started 6 months AFTER he took office,

and lasted for a grueling 16 months DURING his first term?

Reagans, and this has been noted as the Reagan recession by me several times, and by others for some months......happy now?


But wait!!! theres more!!!!

There are folks here, *ahem* that say he didn't have squat to do with it becasue it was successful in what it set out to do and had to be done, so Volcker gets the credit, ala the Volcker recession...sound familiar?



Oh and I am sure it doesn't matter to you, but like, he was you know, shot? 70 days into his term and had a very truncated schedule for 6 months there after...

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Reagan gets a pass on the 16 month recession he presided over, because he was shot and out of commission in 1981.

Oh. My. God.

So when did the BIG tax cut that is supposed to be the be-all end-all centerpiece of REAGANomics pass?

While he was out of commission. Of course, we are going to give him CREDIT for that,

because we're ******* rightwing partisan hack imbeciles...

lord help them

I never said he deserved a pass,I also said now for the 5th or 6th time it was his ball, his recession, either way.........

and as far as the rest of your rant-

here, you and tiachi liberal can belly up to the same pharmaceutical counter-

According to multiple sources, Coprolalia is best treated with Aripiprazole.

I am concerned for your psychological well being buddy, you know that.......please give it a look.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You lied again.




Elián taken by federal authoritiesAttorney general . Negotiations continued for several days as the house was surrounded by protesters as well as police. The relatives insisted on guarantees that they could live with the child for several months and retain custody, and that Elián would not be returned to Cuba. Negotiations carried on throughout the night, but Reno stated that the relatives rejected all workable solutions. A Florida family court judge revoked Lázaro's temporary custody, clearing the way for Elián to be returned to his father's custody. On April 20, Reno made the decision to remove Elián González from the house and instructed law enforcement officials to determine the best time to obtain the boy. After being informed of the decision, Marisleysis said to a Justice Department community relations officer, "You think we just have cameras in the house? If people try to come in, they could be hurt."[14][15]


Elián González is removed at gunpoint from his relatives' home in Miami.In the pre-dawn hours of April 22, pursuant to an order issued by a federal magistrate, eight SWAT-equipped agents of the Border Patrol's elite BORTAC unit as part of an operation in which more than 130 INS personnel took part[16] approached the house; they knocked, and identified themselves. When no one responded from within, they entered the house. Pepper-spray and mace were employed against those outside the house who attempted to interfere. Nonetheless, a stool, rocks, and bottles were thrown at the agents.[17] In the confusion Armando Gutierrez called in Alan Diaz, of the Associated Press, to enter the house and entered a room with Elián, his great uncle's wife Angela Lázaro, her niece, the niece's young son, and Donato Dalrymple (one of the fishermen who had rescued him from the ocean). They waited in the room listening to agents searching the house. Diaz took a widely publicized photograph of a border patrol agent discovering Dalrymple and the boy hiding in a closet.

First, I never lie.

Second, are you saying that Napolitano and Holder both fibbed....(Liberals love to say folks lie)?

Third, can you really be so dense that you misinterpret a Reno-order as a court order?
Duh...

"Janet Reno ordered the return of Elián to his father and set a deadline of April 13, 2000, but the Miami relatives defied the order."

And the best, the last: "A Florida family court judge...."
This from folks who believe that the State of Arizona cannot decide immigration questions?
But a municipal judge can???



Hey, do you know the underlying reason why it was so important to Communist Dictator Fidel Castro to order the fascist-Democrat-Clinton government to return the six-year old?
Aside from the fact that that's how dictators operate....

Hint: what happened to Fidel Castro's own six-year-old?

 

[Trajan]

These types of threads are ridiculous. First the OP is disingenuous. There were two recessions during Reagan's first term. Why doesn't the article key off the first recession instead of the second?

because he kept Volcker on and Reagan is responsible....and it had to be done. So he did it or that is allowed Volcker to do it....

Next, the recessions are very different. It is now widely acknowledged that inflation was broken by Volcker and the Fed, which was the main reason why interest rates came down, causing a tremendous tailwind for the economy. Reagan did some good things for certain, but he also benefited from forces of which were completely beyond his control. Finally, Reagan fired Volcker, the greatest Fed Chair in history and replaced him with Greenspan, the most incompetent Chairman in history, and the man most responsible for the mess we are in today.

yes, I don't think thats in dispute. krugman said same, and the point he made was that as well was that Reagan had such a deep ditch to dig out of a lot of that growth was almost presumptive....so?

and from an earleir post- as I said obama had a number of key advantages Reagan never had;

Not if you use comparative analysis. what was the debt vs gdp %ratio in 1986?

and some more comparisons;

Reagan never had a supra majority, he never had reconciliation majority, he had the senate for just 2 years, the house never, there by granting himself a blank check and the infusions of cash to do with what he pleased ala....


Its 21 months now, we are averaging 2.8%,in the end, we pay for results.

Don't get me wrong. I think Reagan was a good President. But the economic problems were very different from today. If you applied Reagan's policy prescriptions today, the results would be maybe a bit better that what we have but not much.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...s-2-5-million-jobs-lost.html?highlight=Reagan

sure but we both know the nature of this issue is different, I understand that, please see my last blurb on comparisons....... its all about where we are at the end of the day, either they rise or rose to the occasion, or not....I cannot think of any other yardstick that cuts across ideological lines.

I think you would agree that we have or are very close to approaching that line where in he has to own where we are and where we are going?

 

[MaggieMae]

"...when in fact it's from the right wing American Enterprise..."
What a great opportunity you have to eat crow, Mags....
...you couldn't be more wrong....and the honorable thing would be to apologize.
Now, you're honorable, aren't you?

You really need to clean your specs....or find out what quotation marks mean. The phrase "on the whole it retarded recovery" is a direct quote from Brookings.


And, before your abject apology, you might wish to ruminate over the following:

"In February 1935, Roosevelt asked Congress that the NRA be extended another two years. Congress did vote for an extension, but only for one year because of all the complaints. Despite Richberg’s efforts, opposition to the NRA grew stronger and stronger by the time the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional on May 29, 1935.

Economists at the Brookings Institution reported, “The NRA on the whole retarded recovery.” Roosevelt’s Brain Truster Raymond Moley was among the framers of the NRA who later acknowledged the error of their ways. “Planning an economy in normal times is possible only through the discipline of a police state,” he reflected."
Obama’s Link to “Old Iron Pants” by Jim Powell

And:
"Not only, did the NRA provide fewer advantages than unionists had anticipated, but it also failed as a recovery, measure. It probably even retarded recovery by supporting restrictionism and price increases, concluded a Brookings study."
Hist 221 FDR Bernstein « Gil Troy — Courses

So, it was a statement by the Brookings Institute, wasn't it?

And...did you get the reference to a "police state"... you down with that, too?

Isn't it a wonderful education you get here?


Did I just ruin your evening?

You don't have the capability of "ruining" any part of my day. I'm way beyond allowing anyone to do that. But I figured you'd post more of your selected comments in order to prove your point. It seems that Brookings report generated the needed vehicle for Republicans to fall back on to support their criticism of Roosevelt at the time.

What I find ironic is the same criticisms of Roosevelt's NRA are the same ones made today over Obama's stimulus program. While the free-market ideology always sounds good, looks good in papers produced by academics and think-tanks, no one has yet been able to say for sure what the economy of the 1930's depression era would have resembled if government had NOT infused large amounts of money by way of massive projects that put people back to work. A simple chart pulled from the annals of the time show the dramatic drop in unemployment as a result of Roosevelt's New Deal. And I will continue to maintain that a job is a job is a job, without which people don't have money to buy things that create profits for businesses and ultimately regenerate money back into the Treasury by way of taxes as a result of profits.

But...but...but....you suggested that either I fibbed in stating that the Brookings Institute, after careful analysis, stated that FDR 'retarded' rather than solved the Depression....

In fact, you said "But then you go on to post a link trying to prove that "conclusion" came from Brookings when in fact it's from the right wing American Enterprise Institute dated 2007!!!"

When, in fact I was totally correct as far as the Brookings' statement, and you were totally wrong to accuse me of fobbing off the AEI report as the words of Brookings...


...and all I get in the way of apology is "It seems that Brookings report generated blah blah blah...."

I'm wounded! Wounded to the quick!

But, every cloud has a silver lining...and perhaps you've learned your lesson.

It would help if you didn't post in riddles, or vague references. Just say what you mean, i.e., "...many economists in 1935 joined in the results reported by the Brookings Institution...linked here..." rather than simply making the broad statement and tacking on to the end of your snippet a link to American Enterprise. Or, when tossing out Clinton/Cuba and by innuendo trying to make the case that Clinton screwed up relations with Cuba (a' la The Bay of Pigs or something that serious), if you had just referenced the Gonzales child, you wouldn't have raised the hackles on my back.

It's your methods that irritate me, and which I find disingenuous. I recognize you're some sort of political history scholar and fancy yourself as the next great conservative orator in line to blame the entire world problems on liberals, but you also need to learn to state your case in unambiguous terms. Otherwise, no one will listen to you or read you. Be thankful that I do, actually.

Get it now?

 

[MaggieMae]

"Do you just make stuff up as you go along?"
I make nothing up, nor do I post what I cannot support.

Clinton kissed the hems of Castro's gown in the Elian Gonzalez case....breaking American law and traditon.

Libs talk about warrentless wiretaps and the Patriot Act...but breaking into the home of an American citizen who had broken no laws, and infracted no court order, and kidnapping at gunpoint just to assuage Communist Dictator Fidel Castro is exactly what Democrat Clinton did.

Care to debate this?

Oh, and here I thought Clinton made some secret deal with Castro or something that almost brought the entire country to its knees. You know, you could have just SAID what you were talking about, and we could have cleared that up immediately. You also could haved posted a link to any one of hundreds of articles assessing the Brookings analysis, rather than one by a blatantly far-right organization as a teaser. But nooooooooo, it's not your style. You just love to toss out little crumbs hoping to hook a sucker. When or when will I learn your MO?

So, out of all that verbiage designed to cloud the issue...you seem to admit that Democrat Clinton marched shoulder to shoulder with Communist Tyrannt Fidel Castro....


...I see your improvement already!

That's about as dumb as anything I've seen you post.

By the way, does this mean you don't agree that if a parent is willing and capable of raising his own child that he doesn't have that right just because the parent lives in a foreign country? Even the USSC refused to take up this case, or did you forget that...

 

[Truthmatters]

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You lied again.




Elián taken by federal authoritiesAttorney general . Negotiations continued for several days as the house was surrounded by protesters as well as police. The relatives insisted on guarantees that they could live with the child for several months and retain custody, and that Elián would not be returned to Cuba. Negotiations carried on throughout the night, but Reno stated that the relatives rejected all workable solutions. A Florida family court judge revoked Lázaro's temporary custody, clearing the way for Elián to be returned to his father's custody. On April 20, Reno made the decision to remove Elián González from the house and instructed law enforcement officials to determine the best time to obtain the boy. After being informed of the decision, Marisleysis said to a Justice Department community relations officer, "You think we just have cameras in the house? If people try to come in, they could be hurt."[14][15]


Elián González is removed at gunpoint from his relatives' home in Miami.In the pre-dawn hours of April 22, pursuant to an order issued by a federal magistrate, eight SWAT-equipped agents of the Border Patrol's elite BORTAC unit as part of an operation in which more than 130 INS personnel took part[16] approached the house; they knocked, and identified themselves. When no one responded from within, they entered the house. Pepper-spray and mace were employed against those outside the house who attempted to interfere. Nonetheless, a stool, rocks, and bottles were thrown at the agents.[17] In the confusion Armando Gutierrez called in Alan Diaz, of the Associated Press, to enter the house and entered a room with Elián, his great uncle's wife Angela Lázaro, her niece, the niece's young son, and Donato Dalrymple (one of the fishermen who had rescued him from the ocean). They waited in the room listening to agents searching the house. Diaz took a widely publicized photograph of a border patrol agent discovering Dalrymple and the boy hiding in a closet.

First, I never lie.

Second, are you saying that Napolitano and Holder both fibbed....(Liberals love to say folks lie)?

Third, can you really be so dense that you misinterpret a Reno-order as a court order?
Duh...

"Janet Reno ordered the return of Elián to his father and set a deadline of April 13, 2000, but the Miami relatives defied the order."

And the best, the last: "A Florida family court judge...."
This from folks who believe that the State of Arizona cannot decide immigration questions?
But a municipal judge can???



Hey, do you know the underlying reason why it was so important to Communist Dictator Fidel Castro to order the fascist-Democrat-Clinton government to return the six-year old?
Aside from the fact that that's how dictators operate....

Hint: what happened to Fidel Castro's own six-year-old?

" A Florida family court judge revoked Lázaro's temporary custody''


why do you keep lying?

 

[MaggieMae]

off camera?

When they're not aggrandizing for cable news. Watch the real action on C-Span, or when they forget their assigned daily talking points and say what they really mean.

Speaker Boehner Admits Oil Companies Don't 'Pay Their Fair Share' | Political Correction

At a time of skyrocketing gas prices and near-record profits for oil companies, House Speaker John Boehner made a major concession today: Congress should consider cutting multi-billion dollar subsidies to oil companies.

"Everybody wants to go after the oil companies and, frankly, they've got some part of this to blame," the Ohio Republican told ABC News today.

"It's certainly something we should be looking at," Boehner said. "We're in a time when the federal government's short on revenues. They ought to be paying their fair share."

Two whammies in one breath: Admitting we have a "revenue" problem, and also the massive subsidies to the oil companies should be cut off.

what they really mean? you are aware he is , they are all politicians. its not news we have a revenue problem, this was a secret? As far as boehner saying so, of course he did, hes maneuvering going into the budget talks and the debt ceiling as congress re-adjourns next week.......why is this a surprise when a republicans do this? ...Hes also called or knocking done taxes to gain greater tax revenues, thats the whole point, take in mor, e spend less, drive down the deficit, if he is now on board with ending Oil tax breaks ( those are tax breaks btw not subsidies) I think thats short sighted but hey, he said so whats the argument?

Hey, I love it that Boehner seems to be a cooperative leader. But the mantra for over a month now coming from Republicans (and even Boehner at times), has been "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." Over and over and over again. It's their talking point ad nauseam. The truth is, and Boehner acknowledges it, that we have both.

 

[MaggieMae]

The two economies are not exactly comparable, of course. Manufacturing jobs, to which workers can be quickly summoned back, make up a much smaller percentage of the total jobs today. Inflation fell sharply in and after the ’81–’82 recession, while it is increasing today. Housing prices had not suffered nearly the hit they have taken in recent years, adversely influencing people’s perception of their ability to spend money. The microprocessor revolution was much less advanced then than now, when firms contemplating expansion are more likely to look to investing in new technology than in new employees (although the new technology will create more jobs in the long run).

In other words, Reagan's policies worked while Obama's haven't worked. All the excuses you are making for Obama are the result of his policies. Inflation is higher because Obama is debasing the currency. Technology is not advancing because Obama is punishing corporations for investing. The housing market is in the tank because Obama's regulations make it harder for banks to loan money.

These are the fruits of liberalism.

Bullshit. Where are the manufacturing plants that were everywhere in the 1980s???? How many jobs have been lost to computerized mechanisms in 20 years, even before the economy tanked? Holy crap, I understand political tunnel vision, but you've got your head buried in that really dark place not to know that the entire labor landscape is much, much different now. And I haven't even touched on the countless industries that have moved their entire operations overseas. Hell, China even makes Levis now, once the dominant jeans manufacturer for us All-Americans.

 

[MaggieMae]

can't help yourself can you?


anyway, it says in the op, what the comparison is, I am sorry if using a linear yearly calender is not convenient for you or obama, the comparison is post recession, Nov. 82 end of the Reagan recession, July 09 end of the Bush (obama) recession. We are also 21 months out from the end of the recession in 09 and have cracked 5% ONCE....


hello-






the rest is a strawman ....as usual.

Do you deny that almost all if not all of the Reagan recovery occurred AFTER the 1982 tax increase?

Please, deny that.

Strawman? I could have sworn the discussion was Reagan v. Obama, particularly comparing recessions, of which the tax situation was a huge part. Hello?

 

[Sallow]

Parental rights is why the kid was sent back.

When you come inbetween the most basic right to have your child you are a real partisan hack

If that is the BASE of your argument? I could really throw a monkey wrench in this thread and ask why Parents don't have the right to educate their kids how they see fit? Raise their kids how they see fit, and why does the Government interfere, and blatently undo any teachings parents have done with their own children?

Have a smart answer for this?

Yeah.

The kid was a Cuban national.

He was returned to his father.

Simple as that.

 

[Trajan]

Do you deny that almost all if not all of the Reagan recovery occurred AFTER the 1982 tax increase?

Please, deny that.

Strawman? I could have sworn the discussion was Reagan v. Obama, particularly comparing recessions, of which the tax situation was a huge part. Hello?

hello, I don't recall making that argument.



this was the OP;

And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.

How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).

What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.

Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither....


My answers there after and ahead of his addressed the op as broadly as the Op addresses the crux of the matter, we don't have a recovery and where we are are in that context historically.

 

[Truthmatters]

Funny thing to see the right fighting for an illegal alien to stay.