Truths can be distorted and manipulated and taken out of context to present a lie. This is the method used by PoliticalChic. When caught in the lie, she simply responds that everyone of her facts are documented and true. Showing the lie becomes a job of showing how the facts are taken out of context, distorted and manipulated. Her response is repeated. She will pretend your comments don't exist, call you a name and repeat the same nonsense that her statements are all facts that can not be disproved. You can show links to unimpeachable sources and detailed explanations to disprove the conclusions of her nonsense lies and still she will go into the deny, deny, deny mode. Like the kid with her hand stuck in the cookie jar that denies trying to steal a cookie. That is PoliticalChic defending her lying threads and OP's.
From 37, you bet your ass it is. They really didn't teach math at your school, or rational thought.
How come YOU ignored the fact that reagan raised the NATIONAL DEBT 186% from 1 trillion to 2.86 trillion AND BUSH I raised it again by another 1.55 trillion. Clinton paid down the debt by 400 billion and change then along came Bush ll and raised it again. If all the republican presidents had balanced their budgets today's debt would be MUCH lower. Here is WHY republicans are responsible for most of the National debt:
So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?
My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.
So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?
The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.
It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.
Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.
By Now, you should realize how ridiculous your rant about Clinton's 41% national debt increase looks to anyone with a modicum of rational thinking. But to drive the shaft home vigorously and with great pleasure I give you this:
George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan
- Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
- But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
- 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.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. US Department of the Treasury
The benefits from Reaganomics:
- The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
- Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
- Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
- Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
- The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
- Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush
Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:
"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures
Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.
Need another beating?
Sure....no prob:
"Reagan’s legacy affects us dramatically today in two ways. First, Reagan’s anti-Communist foreign policy and his military buildup hastened the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In the past eight years, America’s victory in the Cold War generated a half-trillion-dollar peace dividend. That peace dividend grows every year, and it fell like manna from heaven into President Clinton’s lap. ... the defense budget is nearly $100 billion lower today than when the Berlin Wall came down.
The second effect of the Reagan years was to launch America into what is now widely regarded as a remarkable 15-year low-inflation, high-employment bull market (the Dow was at 800 in 1982, 8,000 today)—interrupted only mildly in the middle Bush years. These 15 years of prosperity were propelled by Reaganomics: lower tax rates, a long-run decline in inflation and interest rates (which also lowers tax rates), freer international trade and a strong dollar. Even with the anti-supply-side Bush and Clinton tax hikes, the top tax rate today of 40% is far below the towering 70% tax rate that disabled the economy in the 1970s. The end of the Cold War has created an international environment of peace and stability, nudging the economy into still higher gear in recent years."
Who Balanced the Budget?
Must have really irked you when SunDevil demolished your attempt to ignore the Morgenthau quotes, huh?
Great.
All Reagan accomplished was to put us into debt so deep we could not recover enough to balance the books. In effect he ruined our economy as evident by the fact that no one has ever been able to repair the damage he did.
The bull market wasn't Reagan's doing it was the implementation of container ship traffic and design, the invention of the personal computer, the invention of cell phones, and the invention of radio communication for trucking companies. The rest was up to entrepreneurs and no one ever paid homage to Reagan for that success.
SunDevil did nothing, all he did was alert the rest of this board to the fact that you are a dishonest hack that uses parts of quotes to make her self look better than she is and that anyone who reads you should be cautioned by the fact that you are not above a dishonest remark to prove your point.
I guess she won't be showing us this anytime soon.
btw, for anyone relatively new around here, this is about the 10th time PoliticalChic has run in this 'argument' of hers,
every time with the same old worn out propaganda, and she's lost the argument every time.
Not to you.
