Ronald Reagan - Prophet

[Cecilie1200]

So, if that's actually how it is, make the case for it.

It's already been done in multiple threads. The claim that Obama's spending is the lowest in several administrations got laughed out of the forum, but here this turd is trying to pedal the same manure in different form.

Sorry, but you'll understand if I don't take you at your word.

You don't have to. Go find the threads and read them. Don't think because you're late to the party, you get to demand that people reinvent the wheel for you.

 

[mjollnir]

It's already been done in multiple threads. The claim that Obama's spending is the lowest in several administrations got laughed out of the forum, but here this turd is trying to pedal the same manure in different form.

Sorry, but you'll understand if I don't take you at your word.

You don't have to. Go find the threads and read them. Don't think because you're late to the party, you get to demand that people reinvent the wheel for you.

I'm not demanding that. Where on earth did you get that?

If this has been debunked so many times, and in such definitive fashion, it should be quite easy to point out without having to to ask that someone go search for them.

I notice neither of you has.

Odd.

 

[Gadawg73]

Have an adult read the chart for you... the 'Start of First Term' is Q1 81/09

Then your chart is horseshit. Spending has gone up way more than that under Obama. The authors of this manure obviously aren't counting all of Obama's spending.

Funny, someone else came to the same conclusion. Probably because the data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn't change just because right wing parrots chirp what they are told by faux news.

Government spending highest under Reagan

Here’s an interesting chart I put together from data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

It shows the quarter-over-quarter average percentage increase in government spending under presidents Reagan through Obama. As you can see, average levels of government spending were highest under Reagan, by a huge margin. We had a boom back then. Next was Bush, then Clinton, then Bush I and last, but not least, was Obama. Average quarterly increases in gov’t spending under Obama have been a miserly 0.7%. This data belies the claim that spending has surged. The nominal amounts are large, yes, but the percentage increases have been very modest. In contrast, Reagan put the pedal to the metal.

Average quarter-over-quarter percentage gain in government spending

Reagan 3.5
Bush I 1.4
Clinton 1.7
Bush II 2.1
Obama 0.7

Reagan out spent the Russians on defense and ended the Cold War. And states and local governments shared in "revenue sharing" under Reagan, a Democrat policy that he eventually killed that had maxed out during his first term.
Additionally, the FED intentionally caused the economic slump under Reagan which dropped revenues in his term in their attempt to curb inflation which ran as high as 20% under Carter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, but you'll understand if I don't take you at your word.

You don't have to. Go find the threads and read them. Don't think because you're late to the party, you get to demand that people reinvent the wheel for you.

I'm not demanding that. Where on earth did you get that?

If this has been debunked so many times, and in such definitive fashion, it should be quite easy to point out without having to to ask that someone go search for them.

I notice neither of you has.

Odd.

You just did it again, while claiming that you're not.

Odd.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have an adult read the chart for you... the 'Start of First Term' is Q1 81/09

Then your chart is horseshit. Spending has gone up way more than that under Obama. The authors of this manure obviously aren't counting all of Obama's spending.

Funny, someone else came to the same conclusion. Probably because the data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn't change just because right wing parrots chirp what they are told by faux news.

Government spending highest under Reagan

Here’s an interesting chart I put together from data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

It shows the quarter-over-quarter average percentage increase in government spending under presidents Reagan through Obama. As you can see, average levels of government spending were highest under Reagan, by a huge margin. We had a boom back then. Next was Bush, then Clinton, then Bush I and last, but not least, was Obama. Average quarterly increases in gov’t spending under Obama have been a miserly 0.7%. This data belies the claim that spending has surged. The nominal amounts are large, yes, but the percentage increases have been very modest. In contrast, Reagan put the pedal to the metal.

Average quarter-over-quarter percentage gain in government spending

Reagan 3.5
Bush I 1.4
Clinton 1.7
Bush II 2.1
Obama 0.7

LOL

Obama's had the biggest deficit in human history in his first term and hasn't gotten a single vote for any of his "Budgets"

 

[mjollnir]

You don't have to. Go find the threads and read them. Don't think because you're late to the party, you get to demand that people reinvent the wheel for you.

I'm not demanding that. Where on earth did you get that?

If this has been debunked so many times, and in such definitive fashion, it should be quite easy to point out without having to to ask that someone go search for them.

I notice neither of you has.

Odd.

You just did it again, while claiming that you're not.

Odd.

No, I didn't.

Your rank intellectual dishonesty duly noted.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

More bad news for right wing parrots...

Growing government? Bush grew government employment through his entire term. Under Obama government employment has DECREASED...

Yeah, well give him another four years (which unfortunately you and your ilk did) when Obamacare kicks in. Further, government employment dropped under Reagan, too. And, it grew in the private sector at a much greater rate than it has grown under Obama. In the same amount of time as president, Ronald Reagan increased the number of those employed in the private sector by 6.7%. Obama, on the other hand, a pathetic 0.8%. Now, insofar as government jobs, seems Slick had the greatest increase in those, with the number of those employed by the government increasing 10% during Slick's eight year term.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Then your chart is horseshit. Spending has gone up way more than that under Obama. The authors of this manure obviously aren't counting all of Obama's spending.

Funny, someone else came to the same conclusion. Probably because the data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn't change just because right wing parrots chirp what they are told by faux news.

Government spending highest under Reagan

Here’s an interesting chart I put together from data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

It shows the quarter-over-quarter average percentage increase in government spending under presidents Reagan through Obama. As you can see, average levels of government spending were highest under Reagan, by a huge margin. We had a boom back then. Next was Bush, then Clinton, then Bush I and last, but not least, was Obama. Average quarterly increases in gov’t spending under Obama have been a miserly 0.7%. This data belies the claim that spending has surged. The nominal amounts are large, yes, but the percentage increases have been very modest. In contrast, Reagan put the pedal to the metal.

Average quarter-over-quarter percentage gain in government spending

Reagan 3.5
Bush I 1.4
Clinton 1.7
Bush II 2.1
Obama 0.7

Reagan out spent the Russians on defense and ended the Cold War. And states and local governments shared in "revenue sharing" under Reagan, a Democrat policy that he eventually killed that had maxed out during his first term.
Additionally, the FED intentionally caused the economic slump under Reagan which dropped revenues in his term in their attempt to curb inflation which ran as high as 20% under Carter.

People like you are so dishonest it's unbelievable. When you make comparisons between Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama? Do you make your comparisons based on equal numbers of years in office? Or, do you make the comparisons to Reagan's, Clinton's and Bush II's entire eight year terms while Obama hasn't even served his full four year term yet? If you're comparing Obama's not yet full four year term with Reagan's, Clinton's and Bush II's full eight year terms, you're a charlatan. You can't make honest comparisons when comparing Obama's not yet even four year term with presidents who have served full eight year terms. It's stupid.

 

[Bfgrn]

Funny, someone else came to the same conclusion. Probably because the data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn't change just because right wing parrots chirp what they are told by faux news.

Government spending highest under Reagan

Here’s an interesting chart I put together from data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

It shows the quarter-over-quarter average percentage increase in government spending under presidents Reagan through Obama. As you can see, average levels of government spending were highest under Reagan, by a huge margin. We had a boom back then. Next was Bush, then Clinton, then Bush I and last, but not least, was Obama. Average quarterly increases in gov’t spending under Obama have been a miserly 0.7%. This data belies the claim that spending has surged. The nominal amounts are large, yes, but the percentage increases have been very modest. In contrast, Reagan put the pedal to the metal.

Average quarter-over-quarter percentage gain in government spending

Reagan 3.5
Bush I 1.4
Clinton 1.7
Bush II 2.1
Obama 0.7

Reagan out spent the Russians on defense and ended the Cold War. And states and local governments shared in "revenue sharing" under Reagan, a Democrat policy that he eventually killed that had maxed out during his first term.
Additionally, the FED intentionally caused the economic slump under Reagan which dropped revenues in his term in their attempt to curb inflation which ran as high as 20% under Carter.

People like you are so dishonest it's unbelievable. When you make comparisons between Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama? Do you make your comparisons based on equal numbers of years in office? Or, do you make the comparisons to Reagan's, Clinton's and Bush II's entire eight year terms while Obama hasn't even served his full four year term yet? If you're comparing Obama's not yet full four year term with Reagan's, Clinton's and Bush II's full eight year terms, you're a charlatan. You can't make honest comparisons when comparing Obama's not yet even four year term with presidents who have served full eight year terms. It's stupid.

You have the nerve to talk about honesty? After you tried to compare private sector employment gains and loses under Reagan and Obama?? Seriously??? Do you live in a vacuum?

Obama walked into the worst economic crisis and private sector job hemorrhaging since the Great Depression. And Obama followed the president with the worst job creation record...Bush.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

And THEN, you right wing turds have the audacity to claim the Stimulus Bill didn't work!

 

[bripat9643]

Your chart is from a financial blog. It's about as credible as saying your sister put it together. You'll excuse of we don't put a lot of stock in your sources. it looks to me like the source of the data is the same that was blasted to smithereens shortly before the election.

Here's a more credible chart:

Funny, someone else came to the same conclusion. Probably because the data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn't change just because right wing parrots chirp what they are told by faux news.

Government spending highest under Reagan

Here’s an interesting chart I put together from data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

It shows the quarter-over-quarter average percentage increase in government spending under presidents Reagan through Obama. As you can see, average levels of government spending were highest under Reagan, by a huge margin. We had a boom back then. Next was Bush, then Clinton, then Bush I and last, but not least, was Obama. Average quarterly increases in gov’t spending under Obama have been a miserly 0.7%. This data belies the claim that spending has surged. The nominal amounts are large, yes, but the percentage increases have been very modest. In contrast, Reagan put the pedal to the metal.

Average quarter-over-quarter percentage gain in government spending

Reagan 3.5
Bush I 1.4
Clinton 1.7
Bush II 2.1
Obama 0.7

 

[Bfgrn]

Your chart is from a financial blog. It's about as credible as saying your sister put it together. You'll excuse of we don't put a lot of stock in your sources. it looks to me like the source of the data is the same that was blasted to smithereens shortly before the election.

Funny, someone else came to the same conclusion. Probably because the data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis doesn't change just because right wing parrots chirp what they are told by faux news.

Government spending highest under Reagan

Here’s an interesting chart I put together from data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

It shows the quarter-over-quarter average percentage increase in government spending under presidents Reagan through Obama. As you can see, average levels of government spending were highest under Reagan, by a huge margin. We had a boom back then. Next was Bush, then Clinton, then Bush I and last, but not least, was Obama. Average quarterly increases in gov’t spending under Obama have been a miserly 0.7%. This data belies the claim that spending has surged. The nominal amounts are large, yes, but the percentage increases have been very modest. In contrast, Reagan put the pedal to the metal.

Average quarter-over-quarter percentage gain in government spending

Reagan 3.5
Bush I 1.4
Clinton 1.7
Bush II 2.1
Obama 0.7

Your usual empty rhetoric. But it matches your empty head.

 

[Meathead]

Your usual empty rhetoric. But it matches your empty head.

My stats good. Your stats bad!

It's had to imagine a more vapid exchange.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not demanding that. Where on earth did you get that?

If this has been debunked so many times, and in such definitive fashion, it should be quite easy to point out without having to to ask that someone go search for them.

I notice neither of you has.

Odd.

You just did it again, while claiming that you're not.

Odd.

No, I didn't.

Your rank intellectual dishonesty duly noted.

That would be "you're", Sparky. You don't want to go there with me. Trust me.

Now look it the **** up and stop being a whiny ***** and expecting everyone to cater to your laziness.

 

[S.J.]

Funny thing about the internet, anybody can post a blog complete with charts. The fact still remains that Obama has outspent Reagan 10 to 1. If that were not the case, liberals like Chris Matthews would be running around like elementary school kids rubbing everyone's nose in it. Instead, they're looking for ways to justify our current muslim in chief's excessive spending by blaming Bush. You liberals are pathetic in your efforts to sell your bogus "facts". That only works in the public schools.

 

[HomeInspect]

Real reason why Romney lost...
>
>
> Romney said, "When I'm elected, I will put Americans back to work,"
>
>
> and 51% said, "**** that!!"

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Reagan out spent the Russians on defense and ended the Cold War. And states and local governments shared in "revenue sharing" under Reagan, a Democrat policy that he eventually killed that had maxed out during his first term.
Additionally, the FED intentionally caused the economic slump under Reagan which dropped revenues in his term in their attempt to curb inflation which ran as high as 20% under Carter.

People like you are so dishonest it's unbelievable. When you make comparisons between Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama? Do you make your comparisons based on equal numbers of years in office? Or, do you make the comparisons to Reagan's, Clinton's and Bush II's entire eight year terms while Obama hasn't even served his full four year term yet? If you're comparing Obama's not yet full four year term with Reagan's, Clinton's and Bush II's full eight year terms, you're a charlatan. You can't make honest comparisons when comparing Obama's not yet even four year term with presidents who have served full eight year terms. It's stupid.

You have the nerve to talk about honesty?

Damn rights I have the nerve to talk about honesty. And, I still have the nerve to talk about honesty. Which, leftists don't have.

After you tried to compare private sector employment gains and loses under Reagan and Obama?? Seriously??? Do you live in a vacuum?

I was trying to compare private sector employment gains and losses? Not in this exchange I wasn't. In this exchange, I was comparing neither private sector nor government jobs...idiot! And, in my last post, I was comparing government jobs and private sector jobs for Reagan and Obama and my statistics were exactly correct. Prove them wrong.

Obama walked into the worst economic crisis and private sector job hemorrhaging since the Great Depression. And Obama followed the president with the worst job creation record...Bush.

Yep, there you go being dishonest again. Does this blame Bush crap ever get old for you people? First off, let's talk about what your chump-in-chief walked in to. Your punk-in-chief walked into an unemployment rate that went up 4.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, an unemployment rate that shot up 58.7% between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. Further, what he walked in to was the number of employed went up in the private sector (seasonally adjusted) 2.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, the number of employed dropping by that same percentage between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. That's what he walked in to.

Second, in George W. Bush's first 47 months in office, the number of employed dropped 1.0% between Jan. 2001 and Nov. 2004. This, mostly due to over 100,000 jobs being lost as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. In New York alone, there were 105,200 jobs lost. In Obama's first 47 months, the number of employed in the private sector increased by 0.8% between Jan. 2009 and Nov. 2012. And, Obama didn't lose over 100,000 jobs due to an attack on mainland America. I'll bet if we added in the at least 105,200 jobs of which were lost in New York alone that day, this would change the picture in a significant manner.

Third, of course, we aren't even counting the number who have stopped looking for jobs under Obama as compared to George W. Bush and that's just yet another example of yours and Obama's, as well as the BLS's, dishonesty.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Oh puhlease. Take your chart above and stuff is somewhere. Right off the bat it's wrong. The number of jobs at the end of George W. Bush's term was 134.4 million, not 135.5 million. And, these were total non-farm jobs, not just private sector jobs.

And THEN, you right wing turds have the audacity to claim the Stimulus Bill didn't work!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! This chart is such a lie. You sure you want to go with the claim these were private sector jobs? You freakin' liars are just astounding. The number of employed, in private sector jobs (seasonally adjusted), went from 111.0 million in January 2009 to 106.8 million in February 2010. This stuff is easily accessible at the BLS's website (even though they're dishonest, you could at least get their numbers right) and that you think you can blatantly lie like this, as if you think no one is actually going to check the veracity of your claims is simply laughable. The stimulus went into effect the second quarter of 2009 and, you're trying to tell me it took until February of 2010 to finally kick in? Uh huh...sure.

 

[Bfgrn]

People like you are so dishonest it's unbelievable. When you make comparisons between Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama? Do you make your comparisons based on equal numbers of years in office? Or, do you make the comparisons to Reagan's, Clinton's and Bush II's entire eight year terms while Obama hasn't even served his full four year term yet? If you're comparing Obama's not yet full four year term with Reagan's, Clinton's and Bush II's full eight year terms, you're a charlatan. You can't make honest comparisons when comparing Obama's not yet even four year term with presidents who have served full eight year terms. It's stupid.

You have the nerve to talk about honesty?

Damn rights I have the nerve to talk about honesty. And, I still have the nerve to talk about honesty. Which, leftists don't have.



I was trying to compare private sector employment gains and losses? Not in this exchange I wasn't. In this exchange, I was comparing neither private sector nor government jobs...idiot! And, in my last post, I was comparing government jobs and private sector jobs for Reagan and Obama and my statistics were exactly correct. Prove them wrong.



Yep, there you go being dishonest again. Does this blame Bush crap ever get old for you people? First off, let's talk about what your chump-in-chief walked in to. Your punk-in-chief walked into an unemployment rate that went up 4.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, an unemployment rate that shot up 58.7% between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. Further, what he walked in to was the number of employed went up in the private sector (seasonally adjusted) 2.8% between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2006, under George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress. Then, the number of employed dropping by that same percentage between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2008, after your cadre took control of Congress in 2007. That's what he walked in to.

Second, in George W. Bush's first 47 months in office, the number of employed dropped 1.0% between Jan. 2001 and Nov. 2004. This, mostly due to over 100,000 jobs being lost as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. In New York alone, there were 105,200 jobs lost. In Obama's first 47 months, the number of employed in the private sector increased by 0.8% between Jan. 2009 and Nov. 2012. And, Obama didn't lose over 100,000 jobs due to an attack on mainland America. I'll bet if we added in the at least 105,200 jobs of which were lost in New York alone that day, this would change the picture in a significant manner.

Third, of course, we aren't even counting the number who have stopped looking for jobs under Obama as compared to George W. Bush and that's just yet another example of yours and Obama's, as well as the BLS's, dishonesty.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Oh puhlease. Take your chart above and stuff is somewhere. Right off the bat it's wrong. The number of jobs at the end of George W. Bush's term was 134.4 million, not 135.5 million. And, these were total non-farm jobs, not just private sector jobs.

And THEN, you right wing turds have the audacity to claim the Stimulus Bill didn't work!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! This chart is such a lie. You sure you want to go with the claim these were private sector jobs? You freakin' liars are just astounding. The number of employed, in private sector jobs (seasonally adjusted), went from 111.0 million in January 2009 to 106.8 million in February 2010. This stuff is easily accessible at the BLS's website (even though they're dishonest, you could at least get their numbers right) and that you think you can blatantly lie like this, as if you think no one is actually going to check the veracity of your claims is simply laughable. The stimulus went into effect the second quarter of 2009 and, you're trying to tell me it took until February of 2010 to finally kick in? Uh huh...sure.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

WOW, you really do live in a vacuum.

The FACTS:

Recession Resulted In 8.3 Million Job Losses. According to the Associated Press, “the Great Recession killed 8.3 million jobs, compared with 1.6 million lost in the 2001 recession.” [Associated Press via Yahoo! News, 5/4/12]

Bush Recession Was So Severe That Economy Was Still Shedding Over Three-Quarters Of A Million Jobs Per Month Through First Few Months Of President Obama's Term. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed 839,000 jobs in January 2009, 725,000 in February 2009, 787,000 in March 2009, and 802,000 in April 2009, for a four-month average of 788,250 lost jobs per month. [BLS.gov, accessed 5/3/12]

Since The Recession Ended In June 2009, The Private Sector Has Added Over 3.4 Million Jobs While Public-Sector Employment Has Fallen By 670,000. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 107,933,000 private-sector jobs in June 2009, and 111,400,000 private-sector jobs in August 2012, an increase of 3,467,000 jobs. The BLS also reports that there were 22,570,000 Americans working in the public sector in June 2009, and 21,900,000 working in the public sector in August 2012, a decrease of 670,000 jobs. The private-sector gains and public-sector losses add up to a total increase of 2,797,000 jobs. [BLS.gov, accessed 9/7/12; BLS.gov, accessed 9/7/12; NBER.org, 9/20/10]

 

[mjollnir]

You just did it again, while claiming that you're not.

Odd.

No, I didn't.

Your rank intellectual dishonesty duly noted.

That would be "you're", Sparky. You don't want to go there with me. Trust me.

Now look it the **** up and stop being a whiny ***** and expecting everyone to cater to your laziness.

Ha! No, you pathetic, sputtering child, the correct usage was as I wrote it: 'your'.

I know, let's do it how you suggested, and see how that looks, shall we?

"You're rank intellectual dishonesty duly noted."

See anything wrong with that sentence?

Of course you don't. You're a ******* idiot.

Please be less so.

 

[regent]

The sad thing in the program to make Reagan into a great president is that all the the charts. all the historians, all the books, have to become lies. Just that in itself has to be a major undertaking. The easiest undertaking, perhaps, is convincing people that all charts, all the historians, all the books are lies. Our political belief system leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to the truth about politicians, and it's no wonder we elect a Harding or a Grant or even a Bush.
Perhaps in twenty years or so a program to make Bush a great president will be started, could it be done, I'll bet the ratings of the public could gradually change, maybe not to great but to above average. The Republians have a near-great president in Teddy Roosevelt, he's even on the mountain but for some reason the Republicans steer clear of poor old Teddy and concentrate on making a mediocre president great. Why, Reagan?

 

[Meathead]

The sad thing in the program to make Reagan into a great president is that all the the charts. all the historians, all the books, have to become lies. Just that in itself has to be a major undertaking. The easiest undertaking, perhaps, is convincing people that all charts, all the historians, all the books are lies. Our political belief system leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to the truth about politicians, and it's no wonder we elect a Harding or a Grant or even a Bush.
Perhaps in twenty years or so a program to make Bush a great president will be started, could it be done, I'll bet the ratings of the public could gradually change, maybe not to great but to above average. The Republians have a near-great president in Teddy Roosevelt, he's even on the mountain but for some reason the Republicans steer clear of poor old Teddy and concentrate on making a mediocre president great. Why, Reagan?

There is no need for a "program" to make Reagan great. History will suffice adequately, and lefty whining can only serve to enhance his legacy. Some people are just to thick to understand.