Stimulus To Solve Unemployment???

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked.

1) deficit spending can only work to harm an economy, not help it

2) imagine how perfectly stupid and liberal one has to be to think the Reagan administration was a scientific experiment that proved deficit spending works?? Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

 

[Toronado3800]

. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked.

1) deficit spending can only work to harm an economy, not help it

2) imagine how perfectly stupid and liberal one has to be to think the Reagan administration was a scientific experiment that proved deficit spending works?? Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

What is with all the name calling?

I do recognize the eras were different and I think them differences were important.

So lets study this Ed, how was this deficit spending different?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked.

1) deficit spending can only work to harm an economy, not help it

2) imagine how perfectly stupid and liberal one has to be to think the Reagan administration was a scientific experiment that proved deficit spending works?? Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

What is with all the name calling?

I do recognize the eras were different and I think them differences were important.

So lets study this Ed, how was this deficit spending different?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked.

1) deficit spending can only work to harm an economy, not help it

2) imagine how perfectly stupid and liberal one has to be to think the Reagan administration was a scientific experiment that proved deficit spending works??

Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

What is with all the name calling?

I do recognize the eras were different and I think them differences were important.

So lets study this Ed, how was this deficit spending different?

Did God hold all the other variables constant? Does a liberal even know what a variable is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. When the U S government wants to spend it has the Financial Management Service of the Department of the Treasury make direct deposits to bank accounts and mail out checks. Period. No securities issue is necessary.

Isn't the Deficit measured by treasury securities?

The U.S. Government finances a deficit by borrowing money from a couple different places. 1) U.S. Citizens and corporations in the form of bonds. 2) From themselves by borrowing money from other programs such as Social Security or Medicare 3) From other countries on the open market. Currently 30% of US debt is owned by other countries with China owning the most at about $850 billion.

So when Reagan issued that new debt back in 81 what did it cost us that year?

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html


Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



We should all be so lucky to have this kind of "cost"!

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

 

[hipeter924]

Economic stimulus like a minimum wage rise, is a short term economic boost. It cannot be used indefinitely, and over time its effect diminishes.

By this I mean, if you increase the wage of worker x from $4 to $6 there would a short term income boost, till worker x puts the acquired increase to economic use or inflation in terms of goods or services makes $6 worth less in what worker x can buy. Also having social-economic mobility increasing (through more higher income jobs available and a low unemployment rate), is required in order to get the full benefits of such an increase. In an extreme case, if you increased the minimum wage to $20 from $6.50, you would need to have a gradual trend of a diminishing size of the labor force in lower income jobs, low unemployment, alongside an increase in the size of the higher income groups like the middle class - as to not have downward pressures on labor costs or inflation issues.

If you shore up banks and businesses with bailouts and such, then for a limited period of time they are economically sound, but if the underlying problems in the management structure and investment decisions remain, then that too is only a short term fix - as many of the banks and other businesses will just collapse again. Certainly there is evidence to suggest nothing has really changed since the recession has happened, and all the problems are pretty much still there behind the scenes - though the property bubble is gone for now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't the Deficit measured by treasury securities?

The U.S. Government finances a deficit by borrowing money from a couple different places. 1) U.S. Citizens and corporations in the form of bonds. 2) From themselves by borrowing money from other programs such as Social Security or Medicare 3) From other countries on the open market. Currently 30% of US debt is owned by other countries with China owning the most at about $850 billion.

So when Reagan issued that new debt back in 81 what did it cost us that year?

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html


Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



We should all be so lucky to have this kind of "cost"!

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

 

[Toronado3800]

Economic stimulus like a minimum wage rise, is a short term economic boost. It cannot be used indefinitely, and over time its effect diminishes.

By this I mean, if you increase the wage of worker x from $4 to $6 there would a short term income boost, till worker x puts the acquired increase to economic use or inflation in terms of goods or services makes $6 worth less in what worker x can buy. Also having social-economic mobility increasing (through more higher income jobs available and a low unemployment rate), is required in order to get the full benefits of such an increase. In an extreme case, if you increased the minimum wage to $20 from $6.50, you would need to have a gradual trend of a diminishing size of the labor force in lower income jobs, low unemployment, alongside an increase in the size of the higher income groups like the middle class - as to not have downward pressures on labor costs or inflation issues.

If you shore up banks and businesses with bailouts and such, then for a limited period of time they are economically sound, but if the underlying problems in the management structure and investment decisions remain, then that too is only a short term fix - as many of the banks and other businesses will just collapse again. Certainly there is evidence to suggest nothing has really changed since the recession has happened, and all the problems are pretty much still there behind the scenes - though the property bubble is gone for now.

This man knows what he is talking about. No name calling. No call outs. Very well written!

 

[Toronado3800]

The U.S. Government finances a deficit by borrowing money from a couple different places. 1) U.S. Citizens and corporations in the form of bonds. 2) From themselves by borrowing money from other programs such as Social Security or Medicare 3) From other countries on the open market. Currently 30% of US debt is owned by other countries with China owning the most at about $850 billion.

So when Reagan issued that new debt back in 81 what did it cost us that year?

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html


Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



We should all be so lucky to have this kind of "cost"!

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

I am curious you answer.

What are the the couple worst recessions or depressions or economic situations you think we have been in since the Civil War and why?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

By this I mean, if you increase the wage of worker x from $4 to $6 there would a short term income boost,

totally stupid and liberal. The worker who goes from $4 to $6 gets a boost and the worker who pays for the boost get the opposite so no net benefit is possible. Econ 101, class one day one!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The U.S. Government finances a deficit by borrowing money from a couple different places. 1) U.S. Citizens and corporations in the form of bonds. 2) From themselves by borrowing money from other programs such as Social Security or Medicare 3) From other countries on the open market. Currently 30% of US debt is owned by other countries with China owning the most at about $850 billion.

So when Reagan issued that new debt back in 81 what did it cost us that year?

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html


Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



We should all be so lucky to have this kind of "cost"!

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was an even bigger financial boon for the family of North Carolina [Democrat] Sen. Kay Hagan than previously reported.

Green State Power, where Tilden Hagan has been CEO since 2009, according to his LinkedIn page, received at least $521,000 in stimulus funds in exchange for installing solar panels across the Tar Heel State.

Tilden Hagan is the son of [Democrat] Kay Hagan, who voted to pass the stimulus bill in 2009.

Green State Power was responsible for installing solar panels on the roof of Plastic Revolutions.

“Plastic Revolutions, a plastics recycling company located in Reidsville, N.C., originally installed a 53kW solar pv array on their roof in 2011,” according toGreen State Power’s website."
Kay Hagan s Son Is CEO Of Company That Got Stimulus Money The Daily Caller


Who was it that said that the "stimulus" was a way to benefit Democrat friends?

Oh...right....I did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So when Reagan issued that new debt back in 81 what did it cost us that year?

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html


Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



We should all be so lucky to have this kind of "cost"!

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html


Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



We should all be so lucky to have this kind of "cost"!

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

well, as % of GDP Clinton kept debt at about 60% while under Bush 41 it shot up from 30% to 50%
. But we should always remember that Clinton's numbers were forced on him by Newt, a Republican, who brought in the first Republican Congress in 40 years and threatened a balanced budget unless Democrats behaved.

 

[Toronado3800]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html


Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



We should all be so lucky to have this kind of "cost"!

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

well, as % of GDP Clinton kept debt at about 60% while under Bush 41 it shot up from 30% to 50%
. But we should always remember that Clinton's numbers were forced on him by Newt, a Republican, who brought in the first Republican Congress in 40 years and threatened a balanced budget unless Democrats behaved.

This has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

Huh.

Ok. So at least in the most shallow of terms deficit spending in Reagan's era worked. I agree the economy felt better in the mid 80's then in 1980 and the GDP did rise. Seems like a recovery to me.

With this stimulus...is it true what he said about it being tax cuts and spending? Is that similar to the Reagan plan?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

 

[Toronado3800]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

Economies expand and contract regardless of presidential policy. It's called the business cycle.

Reagan presided over a very deep recession and a relatively strong recovery. IOW, he presided over a full cycle of the business cycle. It's inevitable propagandizing to claim that the recession wasn't his doing but the recovery was.

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

The chart I posted was about the deficit and GDP and wondering if it was correct in your opinion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

The post is utter nonsense, and a fabrication designed to hide both the mistake in electing Obama and Obama's utter incompetency.

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

The chart I posted was about the deficit and GDP and wondering if it was correct in your opinion.

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC, is this chart representative of the GDP/Domestic product numbers you all believe?

Really? The 1982 to 1990 expansion wasn't possible without Reagan? Reagan's what? Tax cuts? Without the tax cuts it wouldn't have happened?

lol, you're profoundly ignornant.

Bill Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993, and the business expansion that followed for 8 years was bigger and better than the 80's,

starting with the fact that we reduced the deficit instead of increasing it over that time period.

So, again, explain to us why the 80's expansion couldn't have happened without Reagan policies.

The national debt went up 41% under Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?

1993	4,351,044
1994	4,643,307
1995	4,920,586
1996	5,181,465
1997	5,369,206
1998	5,478,189
1999	5,605,523
2000	5,628,700

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Historical Tables The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.

As I have shown, it is one of those Democrat lies.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

The chart I posted was about the deficit and GDP and wondering if it was correct in your opinion.

You graph has nothing to do with the myth that Clinton ran a surplus.