Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
Tomaxo
At this point in Obama's presidency, he has outpaced Reagan for the
same period in Dow Jones Industrial Average growth while incurring a
lower increase in unemployment.
Considering Reagan was trending towards one of the greatest Re-
election landslides in American history, this bodes well for the
president.
The Stat's:
At this point in Reagan's presidency (July 24th of his 2nd year in
office), the Dow Jones Industrial average had grown from 950.68 on the
day of his inauguration to 1,231.17, representing a 29.5% increase.
At this point in Obama's presidency, the DJIA has grown from 7,949.09
to 10,424.62, representing a 31.1% increase.
At this point in Reagan's presidency, the most recent report (June,
1983) showed that unemployment had risen to 10.1% (from 7.5% in
January of 81), marking an increase in unemployment of 2.6%.
At this point in Obama's presidency, the most recent report (June,
2010) shows that unemployment has risen to 9.5% (from 7.7% in January
of 09), marking an increase in unemployment of 1.8%.
While the final tally on national debt increase will not be known for
years, Obama would have to triple the national debt (to over 30
trillion dollars) to keep on pace with Reagan in that area.
Tomaxo
> Let the high tax economic boom begin!
higher taxes than what, the Bush economic disaster years? Clinton had
a vastly bigger economic boom than either of his Republican
predecessors, and he did so while raising taxes.
Are there actually still any serious economists out there who think
trickle down works?
It's as if Republicans are convinced that giving the biggest pig in
the house the keys to the refridgerator is the way to insure most
efficient food economy in the household.
News flash: Those at the top are NOT there for improving our
economy. They are there for improving THEIR economy, even if that
might have relocated to the United Arab Emirates after accepting
Billions in federal contracts based on their status as an American
company.
They lobby, you lose. That's how trickle down economics works.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
wy
And that's what I've been saying all along, more or less. Can't deny
facts, unless you're a basket case of a right wingnut who blindly
longs for a return to the worse old days.
Tomaxo
There are a lot of self-proclaimed "Free Market" advocates with a hard-
on for communist China these days (much as with their past affinity
for banana republic dictatorships). If you think about it, it's the
pipe dream of all would be monopolists...a gun-point labor force with
no rights, for whom wages can be set low regardless of profits...an
ability to polute at will without protest and outright ownership of
the military and its use.
BTW: How many takers have you gotten so far?
Bret Cahill
After 2 decades of trolling?
Zip.
I could raise the amount to $200,000 and they still wouldn't answer.
Bret Cahill
Tomaxo
Reagan ran on balancing the budget while cutting taxes. He trippled
the natinoal debt.
Clinton ran on balancing the budget while raising taxes. He produced
balanced budgets.
Bush Jr. ran on balancing the budge while cutting taxes. He doubled
the national debt.
Kind of makes Hannity and Beck look really stupid, doesn't it? (if it
were not already obvious)
Bret Cahill
Still the GOP may pick up several seats before they are completely
vanquished in 2012.
Bret Cahill
Tomaxo
I am not surprised
>
>
> Bret Cahill
The PHANTOM
> > > Let the high tax economic boom begin!
>
Why?? You expecting that promised reperations check??
The PHANTOM
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought you said the GOP was "vanquished" 4 years ago when the
progressives took control of congress?
COL. BILL KILGORE
"Tomaxo" <tom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e9564d79-ba3a-4d93...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Earth to tomaxo - in case you haven't checked your calendar hanging
on the grease-pit wall lately Senor Velasquez, Reagan left office in 1989
and has since died - just as your mutt's presidency will die in 2012.
That's the funniest thing here - you know it - hence your hysterical and
ridiculous numerical comparisons of two different POTUS's from completely
different eras. Moron.
First Post.
What else can be expected when they can't produce anything factual
about Obama that can be considered a positive.
Tearing someone else down in order to build up another has been a
primary tactic in left wing politics for a long time.
It will always be "what about Bush, what about Reagan" with them as
they cannot point to single thing thing that Obama can actually be
praised for regarding benefiting the nation.
Tomaxo
That you are cheering on Proven Fraud and Disgrace (and Timothy S.
Watson sock) "Col. Bill Kilgore's embarassing display of ignorance
regarding the relevance of statistical trends and ratios over
comparative points in history speaks a great deal about you.
In case you haven't noticed that he has been long relegated to the
same irrelevance as all of Timothy S. Watson's other socks (hint
hint), while I post, and am responded to freely, including on matters
of "actual" military servive, you can understand the anguish that
drives Proven Fraud and Disgrace to humiliatingly obsess over
everything Tomaxo, including his own delusional fabrications.
The fact this post has fed you and your Fox/Drudge fantasy world your
luch is entirely your problem. As you clearly have no factual retort,
go bitch and moan elsewhere (presuming...snicker..you have an
"elsewhere" to bitch in)
Bret Cahill
Actually the GOP was walking dead by 2000. The high tax Clinton
economic boom monkey wrenched all the GOP's talking points.
Democrats just didn't run anyone in 2000 or 2004 and that's why so
many wingers are so confused.
Bret Cahill
First Post.
wrote:
Failure to address what I posted noted.
I don;t give a shit about your whiney little complaints about a
particular poster.
The fact remains, you have nothing that you can say about Obama that
emphasizes anything positive he has accomplished or tried to
accomplish.
Nothing positive about how he has handled the crisis in the gulf,
nothing positive about the way the administration handled the Sherrod
incident (making her quit because they feared the clip would be aired
on Fox), nothing positive about his handling of the economy(over
400,000 more out of work last week) and a host of others.
Your response to Obama's lackluster administration has been "what
about Bush, what about Reagan?"
Just the typical left wing "since someone else fucked up it's OK for
your guy to do the same or worse."
wy
He extracted $20 billion out of BP to pay victims so you won't have to
and capped the well. That's positive enough.
> nothing positive about the way the administration handled the Sherrod
> incident (making her quit because they feared the clip would be aired
> on Fox),
He make Sherrod quit, he doesn't run the agriculture department, that
was Tom Vilsack's job. If anything, Obama might've urged Vilsack to
reconsider his position and he did call Sherrod and spoke to her
personally after Vilsack did reconsider his position. That's positive
enough.
nothing positive about his handling of the economy(over
> 400,000 more out of work last week) and a host of others.
Many more were out of work under Reagan and under a situation less
severe than the current economic crisis. That's positive enough.
> Your response to Obama's lackluster administration has been "what
> about Bush, what about Reagan?"
Well, what's your response? What about Obama? Specify exactly what
wrong he has done that has left you totally debilitated in life. And
if you are totally debilitated in life, I suspect that's your own
doing, not Obama's.
> Just the typical left wing "since someone else fucked up it's OK for
> your guy to do the same or worse."
Well, someone else did fuck up. Obama took office with other
presidents' unfinished problems to deal with. Name one new problem
Obama has created on his own that is not in any way related to the
problems of the others. Just one. I'll try not to hold my breath.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Jul 25, 12:46 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
>>
>>>> At this point in Obama's presidency, he has outpaced Reagan for the
>>>> same period in Dow Jones Industrial Average growth while incurring a
>>>> lower increase in unemployment.
>>
Obama wasn't handed 21% interest rates but Obama is creating them.
Obama wants a Gas Shortage, while Reagan was handed one, Obama's plan is
digging the hole deeper while Reagan quit digging. Reagan created
economic freedom Obama is creating Socialist slavery.
sillapond
> Can't deny
> facts, unless you're a basket case of a right wingnut who
Stay angry tool, on command.
sillapond
> Obama took office with other
> presidents' unfinished problems to deal with. Name one new problem
> Obama has created on his own
So true, he has help from ALL the Dems...
Tomaxo
Reagan TRIPPLED the national debt. That is all that needs to be said
to shut your ridiculous ass up, as you Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and
Drudge will NEVER be able to refute that fact.
Tomaxo
<unread sniveling that again does not address ANY of the facts posted
SNIPPED..snicker>
The surrest teltale sign of a Timothy S. Watson sock is the desperate
pretense to be in a position to request a response to any of his
claims.
Tragically for him, he has been killfiled by everyone, so he has to
continue to crank out new socks (all to be quickly killfiles or simply
laughed at, just like his Proven Fraud and Disgrace "Col. Bill
Kilgore", TheWizardryofOZ, Jakk, TheLoneRange, ScreenRanger,
ScreenBeret,Topset, PatriotGay, LeeLanau, etc, etc, etc socks.
Absolutely nobody cares what Timothy S. Watson socks say, so his sorry
condition continues 24/7 without any non-taunting response.
His obsession with everything Tomaxo is but evidence of who it was
that drove most of his socks so completely into usenet irrelevance.
Tomaxo
Hey Wy....the obvious fact Republicans are COMPLETELY aout of
amunition this election, as evidenced by their inability to counter a
single fact posted is very telling, isn't it?
I'm begining to believe they could actually lose seats this November
if things continue on their current path.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Three times nothing is still nothing, three times 1.5 trillion will be
our demise.
Tomaxo
That you have failed to distinguish between "debt" and "deficit" is
forgiven, as this is a (sadly) common mistake being made these days
regarding discussions of fiscal matters.
That said, it is funny you would state "three times NOTHING". For
those of us who recall Reagan's first election, the natinoal debt was
clearly one of the cornerstones of his campaign regarding econoomic
policy. He challenged us to "try to imagine" the One Trillion dollare
national debt we were approaching, elaborating on how it would
represent the ruination of our economy. When he left office with a 3
trillion dollar national debt, he had long become silent on the
matter.
Similarly convenient moments of amnesia for Republicans when
discussing fiscal policies involve the failure to mention Vice
President (and primary formulater of Bush economic policy) Dick
Cheney's statement that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".
The key to deficit spending is what it is spent on. While Republicans
tend to spend it almost exclusively on slush funds, such as the Iraq
war, Democrats tend to spend it on infrastructural development.
Because of this FDR was able to spend America into far higher debt (as
a % of GDP) than Obama will ever reach, while preparing America to win
a war against the two largest superpowers of his era, and leave
America in a position to become for the first time the worlds dominant
economy.
Republicans, conversely, have simply left America with a vastly
inflated national debt and no new infrastructure to show for it.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 7/25/2010 1:08 PM, Tomaxo wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> On 7/25/2010 7:51 AM, The PHANTOM wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 25, 12:46 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At this point in Obama's presidency, he has outpaced Reagan for the
>>>>>>>> same period in Dow Jones Industrial Average growth while incurring a
>>>>>>>> lower increase in unemployment.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obama wasn't handed 21% interest rates but Obama is creating them.
>>>> Obama wants a Gas Shortage, while Reagan was handed one, Obama's plan is
>>>> digging the hole deeper while Reagan quit digging. Reagan created
>>>> economic freedom Obama is creating Socialist slavery.
>>>
>>> Reagan TRIPPLED the national debt. That is all that needs to be said
>>> to shut your ridiculous ass up, as you Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and
>>> Drudge will NEVER be able to refute that fact.
>>
>>
>> Three times nothing is still nothing, three times 1.5 trillion will be
>> our demise.
>
> That you have failed to distinguish between "debt" and "deficit" is
> forgiven, as this is a (sadly) common mistake being made these days
> regarding discussions of fiscal matters.
>
Too bad you didn't get it..... Reagan increased the debt and the
deficit and so is Obama. Obama's deficit is all debt with no end in site.
Reagan managed to defeat the USSR, that gave you the "PEACE DIVIDEND"
which was then spent by Bush 41 and Clinton..... And they ballanced that
budget on the back of Ronald Reagan who did his job.
With Clinton there was no one watching the peace and terrorism resulted
in the high cost of 9/11 and the resulting National security expense.
> That said, it is funny you would state "three times NOTHING". For
> those of us who recall Reagan's first election, the natinoal debt was
> clearly one of the cornerstones of his campaign regarding econoomic
> policy. He challenged us to "try to imagine" the One Trillion dollare
> national debt we were approaching, elaborating on how it would
> represent the ruination of our economy. When he left office with a 3
> trillion dollar national debt, he had long become silent on the
> matter.
>
And yet the Republican congress, with Clinton managed to almost balance
that budget using the money that Reagan saved them.
Oz
>
> - Show quoted text -
We mustn't forget the large sum h had to spend to rearm us after that
leftwing kook Carter stripped our military to shreds. It helped result
in the collapse of the USSR, as they could not economically afford to
keep up with us.
Tomaxo
No, actually, the rate of increas in the national debt should
dramatically decrease as the economy begins to recover, the stimulous
spending ends and the increased tax revenue starts accumulating.
Then, as emergency spending decreases enough, we should hopefully see
the same kind of deficit reduction that we saw under Clinton (but
NEVER under Reagan or either of the Bushes).
>
> Reagan managed to defeat the USSR, that gave you the "PEACE DIVIDEND"
> which was then spent by Bush 41 and Clinton.....
Wow..some history you've learned. Half a century of American Cold War
defense efforts, starting with Truman's Soviet Containment policy
defeated the USSR. While Reagan admirably took on an aggressive
defensive posture, his individual impact on the Soviet Union's demise
was evidenced by the fact Bush Sr (Reagan's VP) did not even see the
Soviet Union's collapse coming when it finally did.
> And they ballanced that
> budget on the back of Ronald Reagan who did his job.
>
The debt continued ballooning all the way through Bush Sr. Presidency
BECAUSE of Reagan's policies.
>
> With Clinton there was no one watching the peace and terrorism resulted
You are again looking foolish. The FIRST World Trade Center attack
(foiled only by sheer luck) occured one month after Clinton took
office. Now how HAVE to accept one of the following (turn off Hannity
and listen for a second): Either Bush Jr. was completely responsible
for 9/11 (which occured almost 9 months into his presidency) OR BUSH
SR was responsible for the first World Trade Center attack. You don't
get to have it both ways.
> in the high cost of 9/11 and the resulting National security expense.
>
Bush Jr was not even treating Bin Laden as a serious threat in the
many months preceding 9/11. As Regan and Bush Sr, financed and
trained the Army that would become Al Qaeda, it is curious how quick
you are to completely absolve them for political expedience.
>
> > That said, it is funny you would state "three times NOTHING". For
> > those of us who recall Reagan's first election, the natinoal debt was
> > clearly one of the cornerstones of his campaign regarding econoomic
> > policy. He challenged us to "try to imagine" the One Trillion dollare
> > national debt we were approaching, elaborating on how it would
> > represent the ruination of our economy. When he left office with a 3
> > trillion dollar national debt, he had long become silent on the
> > matter.
> >
>
> And yet the Republican congress, with Clinton managed to almost balance
> that budget using the money that Reagan saved them.
Reagan "saved" nothing. He sattled us with a trippled national debt
and committments and disasterous policies (see Savings and Loan
crisis) that would continue to impact us for decades.
Reagan/Bush, helped strengthen Saddam Hussein, The Army that would
become Al Qaeda and General Noriega, all of whom we would end up
fighting numerous massively expensive wars agains. What a rediculous
notion that he "saved" us expenses.
Tomaxo
Timothy S. Watson's sock who named himself after a book about the
making of "The Wizard of Oz" (The Wizardry of Oz), why do you continue
to pretend anyone buys this Fox/Drudge talking point any more.
Everyone knows that ALL of the military drawdowns implemented under
Clinton were proposed and approved under Bush Sr. As for "the Army
Reagan built"...Nobody believes that it wasn't the Army AMERICA built
up from every President from Truman on to confront the Soviet Union.
Once the mission (the Soviet Union) was gone....what exactly was the
motivation for keeping a massive counter-Soviet Union force in Europe,
including such units as the Berlin Brigade (designed to defend Berlin
from East Germany...now absorbed into the west).
Even when you try to attempt a pretense at intelligent discourse, your
stupidity always comes through. Are you blaming Clinton for
"allowing" the drawing down of the Berlin brigade?
COL. BILL KILGORE
"Tomaxo" <tom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:97d6d8a1-1e9c-46f9...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
You're not just a liar Lou, you're a pathetic liar. Oh, BTW, exactly how
many posters are we today? We understand that we are now Oz. Do you have
any idea just how foolish you sound?
Frank Etch
and Disgrace COL. BILL KILGORE sock, Timothy S. Watson wrote:
<snip>
Shut your blubbering pussy Kilbore...nobody reads your whiny ass
bulshit anymore....You accepted the title "Usenet's Biggest Pussie"
quite some time ago, and that settled it.
You can't say Tomaxo didn't give you plenty of warning.
Try to learn to lose gracefully. You will look less pathetic.
Franklin Etch: Rooting Out Fraud and Disgrace In The Land of The Free
wy
Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> On 7/25/2010 7:51 AM, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
> > On Jul 25, 12:46 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
>
> >>>> At this point in Obama's presidency, he has outpaced Reagan for the
> >>>> same period in Dow Jones Industrial Average growth while incurring a
> >>>> lower increase in unemployment.
>
> Obama wasn't handed 21% interest rates but Obama is creating them.
There is no 21% interest rate.
> Obama wants a Gas Shortage, while Reagan was handed one,
Reagan wasn't handed any gas shortage and there's no gas shortage
now. But Bush created a gas crisis with $4 per gallon gas. What is
it now? $2.70 p.g., which is what it's more or less been for over a
year now. Your real point is?
Obama's plan is
> digging the hole deeper while Reagan quit digging. Reagan created
> economic freedom Obama is creating Socialist slavery.
The only economic freedom Reagan created was the mushrooming of wealth
for the filthy rich at the expense of the middle class. I find it
funny that someone like you, a member of the middle class, would
support the rich getting richer while you have to subsidize their
wealth by paying the taxes they didn't have to pay under Reagan or
Bush. Is that your defense? It's a poorly thought-one, so don't ever
think of becoming a lawyer - ever.
wy
> On 07/24/2010 10:39 PM,wywrote:
>
> > Can't deny
> > facts, unless you're a basket case of a right wingnut who
>
> Stay angry tool, on command.
Stay angry tool?
wy
> sillapond wrote:
> > On 07/25/2010 09:00 AM,wywrote:
> > > Obama took office with other
> > > presidents' unfinished problems to deal with. Name one new problem
> > > Obama has created on his own
>
> > So true, he has help from ALL the Dems...
>
> amunition this election, as evidenced by their inability to counter a
> single fact posted is very telling, isn't it?
>
> I'm begining to believe they could actually lose seats this November
> if things continue on their current path.
It'll be a miracle if they hold on to the number they presently have.
You can only shoot yourself in the foot so many times before some of
the stupider voters, the hardcore Republican base, figure out that
right wingnuts are just a plain dead end.
wy
That's what they said when the U.S. reached its first trillion dollar
debt back in the early 1940s, and guess what? Seventy years later and
the U.S. is still standing. How does that happen?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Jul 25, 12:26 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>> On 7/25/2010 7:51 AM, The PHANTOM wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 25, 12:46 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
>>
>>>>>> At this point in Obama's presidency, he has outpaced Reagan for the
>>>>>> same period in Dow Jones Industrial Average growth while incurring a
>>>>>> lower increase in unemployment.
>>
>> Obama wasn't handed 21% interest rates but Obama is creating them.
>
> There is no 21% interest rate.
Today but Obama can't keep the stock market artificially elevated and
interest rates down for ever, soon the bottom will drop out and we'll be
on the Jimmy Carter path to prosperity.
I am impressed that Obama has fudged the numbers and used creative book
keeping this successfully.
wy
Where do you get your history from, Archie comics?
>
> > That said, it is funny you would state "three times NOTHING". For
> > those of us who recall Reagan's first election, the natinoal debt was
> > clearly one of the cornerstones of his campaign regarding econoomic
> > policy. He challenged us to "try to imagine" the One Trillion dollare
> > national debt we were approaching, elaborating on how it would
> > represent the ruination of our economy. When he left office with a 3
> > trillion dollar national debt, he had long become silent on the
> > matter.
>
> And yet the Republican congress, with Clinton managed to almost balance
> that budget using the money that Reagan saved them.
Reagan didn't save anything. Clinton's success was derived from
raising taxes, which I imagine the Republicans went along with because
they had control of the House.
Notice how revenues overtook outlays in Clinton's years:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/homepagegraphic.gif
Then lost ground again under Bush when he decided to play toy soldier
games in Iraq and then sent outlays skyrocketing when he left office,
after which Obama has managed to, and is projected to continue to,
narrow the gap.
wy
Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
> On 7/25/2010 9:20 PM,wywrote:
Or maybe the numbers are just plain real and you're in denial. I'm
likely to believe that more than Obama fudging numbers.
Beam Me Up Scotty
NOT "all".... I remember some big fights over new base closings.
> Clinton were proposed and approved under Bush Sr. As for "the Army
> Reagan built"...Nobody believes that it wasn't the Army AMERICA built
> up from every President from Truman on to confront the Soviet Union.
Yes and Reagan pushed the USSR over the cliff by out pacing them and
they new that freedom and capitalism would bury them by out producing
them as it did when we out produced Germany too...
Which shows that Reagan saved their ass with budgets that could be
"balanced" yet they just barely got there on "projected" budgets and
never realized the goal.
>
> Once the mission (the Soviet Union) was gone....what exactly was the
> motivation for keeping a massive counter-Soviet Union force in Europe,
NONE and the NATO "mission" was changed under Clinton, they became a
mercenary army.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Failure to use public financing when he was running for the Presidency.
Failure to keep Lobbyist out of his Administration.
Failure to close GITMO, just moving it to Illinois.
Failure to hire people Qualified to do their job.
Failure to stop the economic slide into the abyss.
Failure to stop Iran from producing nuclear fissile material
Failure to stop N. Korea from threatening it's neighbors.
Failure to stop ear marks.
Failure to bring *all* the troops home.
Failure to end the Patriot act.
Failure to create an effective energy plan.
Failure to drill for American Oil.
Failure to make coal cleaner.
Failure to lower taxes for 95%
Failure to Cut tax, instead he's raising a carbon tax/VAT tax.
Failure to Cut tax, instead he's raising a Health care tax and fees.
Failure to get a dog from the pound.
Failure to create Bipartisanship in the USA
Failure to negotiate with terrorists/pirates rather than killing them.
Failure to read "line by line" any spending bills before signed
Failure to get the Olympics for Chicago
Failure to get Valerie Jarred big graft for her Chicago Slums
Failure to Talk to his Generals in the War Zone.
Failure to act decisively on the war in Afghanistan.
Failure to create GREEN JOBS.
Failure to keep the promise of no more than 8% unemployment, it's 10%
Failure to protect and preserve the Constitution(signing statements)
Failure to keep the terrorists out, and keep the USA safe.
Failure to be transparent, Obama said health care would be on C-SPAN.
Failure to make the rest of the world love us.
Failure to stop NO BID CONTRACTS as he promised
Failure to continue maned Space exploration as promised.
Failure to govern by majority, he promotes back door reconciliation
Failure to tell us he Is a Socialist.
Failure to admit health care wasn't deficit neutral, he's raising taxes.
Failure to tell us he was Lying just to get elected.
Failure to...
wy
And how has any of that made your life more miserable now than it was
a year ago other than you making it so yourself?
Tomaxo
....
> NOT "all".... I remember some big fights over new base closings.
The "big fights" over base closings were universally about states (and
their vested Congressmen) fighting to keep the jobs associated with
those bases. They had almost nothing to do with military strategy.
The fact most of the closings occured in "blue" states tells you a
lot about which party was in power when the decisions were made.
Additionally, a huge portion of the "cuts" had to do with stopping
production of new ICBMs and long range bombers, whose mission was no
longer justified.
>
> > Clinton were proposed and approved under Bush Sr. As for "the Army
> > Reagan built"...Nobody believes that it wasn't the Army AMERICA built
> > up from every President from Truman on to confront the Soviet Union.
>
.....
> Yes and Reagan pushed the USSR over the cliff by out pacing them and
> they new that freedom and capitalism would bury them by out producing
> them as it did when we out produced Germany too...
But that was not Reagan's strategy. He sold us on his buildup on the
notion that the Soviet Union had a much greater capacity to build up
its military than it actually did (chastising those who suggested the
Soviet Union was on the decline in power). While I was very please
with the outcome of expiditing the demise of the USSR, the result was
clearly accidental, and had more to do with pleasing a huge campaign
contributing base in the defense industry than in causing the collapse
of the Soviets.
>
> Which shows that Reagan saved their ass with budgets that could be
> "balanced" yet they just barely got there on "projected" budgets and
> never realized the goal.
This is a valid argument ONLY if you are equally willing to state LBJs
inflated social programs helped Reagan by creating funding that could
be cut.
Besides, like I said, Reagans buildup, was but a tiny fraction of the
overall buildup over the Cold War.
>
>
>
> >
> > Once the mission (the Soviet Union) was gone....what exactly was the
> > motivation for keeping a massive counter-Soviet Union force in Europe,
>
> NONE and the NATO "mission" was changed under Clinton, they became a
> mercenary army.
Then it sounds like you are again having it both ways here. Where
were these units supposed to be re-amied then, following the collapse
of the Soviet Union and the end of the Persian Gulf war (remember, Bin
Laden had not yet emerged as a signifigant threat to America) when the
drawdown decisions were made?
sillapond
> Reagan didn't save anything.
Wrong.
http://old.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406100915.asp
Economists were vexed during the 1970s, as unemployment and inflation
rose together to stifle economic growth and all forms of investment. The
Keynesian Phillips-curve paradigm, whereby employment and inflation are
supposed to move in opposite directions, completely broke down. The Ivy
League formula of increasing the money supply to spur growth, and high
taxes to hold back inflation, had failed utterly.
Between the late 1960s and 1980, the U.S. inflation rate rose from 2
percent to 14 percent, while the unemployment rate gradually drifted
higher, from 4 percent to almost 10 percent. It was a period of decline
for the country. Americans were demoralized.
As stagflation became more deeply embedded in the U.S. economy, Soviet
adventurism in Central and South America, Asia, and elsewhere around the
world became more pronounced. The Soviets saw the U.S. cut and run from
Vietnam. Our Cold War adversary saw nothing but weakness emanating from
the U.S.
Ronald Reagan changed all that. From the moment of his swearing-in in
Jan¬ uary 1981, with his extraordinarily strong character and deep and
abiding faith in God, Reagan acted relentlessly to revive the nation.
More than any modern president, Reagan understood the link between
economic growth at home and American strength overseas. It was the
Gipper’s most brilliant insight. He acted swiftly to show our enemies
that we would produce the necessary economic resources to do whatever it
would take, for however long was necessary, to triumph over the
Communist menace.
Immediately upon assuming office, he reversed the economic policy of the
decline years. He brought down marginal tax rates, restoring the
incentives necessary for economic growth. He gave Federal Reserve
chairman Paul Volcker the strong ground to stand on, allowing him to
harden the value of the dollar and slay inflation.
At bottom, what became known as Reaganomics was a new pro-growth policy
mix of tax incentives at the margin and stable money. But there was
more. The Californian launched a massive military buildup totaling about
$1.5 trillion. He deregulated oil prices, proving the conventional
wisdom wrong as energy became much cheaper. He launched U.S.-Canadian
free trade. He was unyielding in his opposition to the air-traffic
controllers’ strike, firing thousands of these government workers and
ending the anti-growth union stranglehold on private industry. He
created individual retirement accounts and 401(k)s, giving birth to the
investor class. He also slashed social spending by reducing domestic
program levels (excluding Social Security and health care) by nearly $50
billion in 1981. That amount would come to about $90 billion today.
By 1986, Reagan’s tax-reform plan left two marginal rates of 28 percent
and 15 percent, a long stone’s throw from the 70 percent top rate he had
inherited. His plan also cut about 2,000 pages from the tax code.
Ideas matter. Results quickly followed for Reagan. Between 1982 and
1989, the economy grew, adjusting for inflation, by 35 percent: more
than 4.5 percent per year. As growth was restored, tax revenues came
flowing in. Income-tax revenues grew by 50 percent during this period
even as tax rates dropped. By 1986, the inflation rate had fallen to 1
percent. By the end of his term, unemployment had dropped to 5.5
percent. Interest rates had plunged. The stock market had soared.
From July 1982 through the end of 1988, the S&P 500 averaged a near 21
percent annual gain. Brand-new industries arose in computing, software,
communications, and the Internet — original endeavors that completely
streamlined and transformed the American economy for the decades to
come. In effect, Reaganomics launched a 20-year boom, the longest
prosperity period in the 20th century.
Reagan critics to this day continue to harp on deficits and debt, rather
than the growth miracle produced by Reaganomics. But they are factually
wrong. Reagan inherited a budget gap of roughly 2.5 percent of the
economy. By the end of his two terms, he left it exactly where he found
it. In between, he restored our economic health and revitalized our
standing around the world.
sillapond
China.
Japan.
Next.
sillapond
Grow up child, the voters will express their will on this jobless
recovery all too soon.
sillapond
Yes, tool.
Now fume some more.
sillapond
> On Jul 25, 12:26 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty<Then-Destroy-
> Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>> On 7/25/2010 7:51 AM, The PHANTOM wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 25, 12:46 am, Bret Cahill<Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
>>
>>>>>> At this point in Obama's presidency, he has outpaced Reagan for the
>>>>>> same period in Dow Jones Industrial Average growth while incurring a
>>>>>> lower increase in unemployment.
>>
>> Obama wasn't handed 21% interest rates but Obama is creating them.
>
> There is no 21% interest rate.
Presently...
>> Obama wants a Gas Shortage, while Reagan was handed one,
>
> Reagan wasn't handed any gas shortage
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis
The 1979 (or second) oil crisis in the United States occurred in the
wake of the Iranian Revolution. Amid massive protests, the Shah of Iran,
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled his country in early 1979 and the Ayatollah
Khomeini soon became the new leader of Iran. Protests severely disrupted
the Iranian oil sector, with production being greatly curtailed and
exports suspended. When oil exports were later resumed under the new
regime, they were inconsistent and at a lower volume, which pushed
prices up. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations, under the presidency of
Dr. Mana Alotaiba increased production to offset the decline, and the
overall loss in production was about 4 percent.[2] However, a widespread
panic resulted, driving the price far higher than would be expected
under normal circumstances.
In 1980, following the Iraqi invasion of Iran, oil production in Iran
nearly stopped, and Iraq's oil production was severely cut as well.
> and there's no gas shortage
> now. But Bush created a gas crisis with $4 per gallon gas.
How'd he do that anyway?
What with oil being a commodity traded on the open market?
> What is
> it now? $2.70 p.g., which is what it's more or less been for over a
> year now. Your real point is?
How much of a liar you are.
> Obama's plan is
>> digging the hole deeper while Reagan quit digging. Reagan created
>> economic freedom Obama is creating Socialist slavery.
>
> The only economic freedom Reagan created was the mushrooming of wealth
> for the filthy rich at the expense of the middle class.
Oh my, listen to the class warfare rhetoric flow, the "filthy rich" is it?
Would that include Buffet and Gates, our 2 largest philanthropers?
You subhuman turd.
Pete10016
> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
>
> At this point in Obama's presidency, he has outpaced Reagan for the
> same period in Dow Jones Industrial Average growth while incurring a
> lower increase in unemployment.
>
> election landslides in American history, this bodes well for the
> president.
>
> The Stat's:
>
> At this point in Reagan's presidency (July 24th of his 2nd year in
> office), the Dow Jones Industrial average had grown from 950.68 on the
> day of his inauguration to 1,231.17, representing a 29.5% increase.
>
> At this point in Obama's presidency, the DJIA has grown from 7,949.09
> to 10,424.62, representing a 31.1% increase.
>
> At this point in Reagan's presidency, the most recent report (June,
> 1983) showed that unemployment had risen to 10.1% (from 7.5% in
> January of 81), marking an increase in unemployment of 2.6%.
>
> At this point in Obama's presidency, the most recent report (June,
> 2010) shows that unemployment has risen to 9.5% (from 7.7% in January
> of 09), marking an increase in unemployment of 1.8%.
>
> While the final tally on national debt increase will not be known for
> years, Obama would have to triple the national debt (to over 30
> trillion dollars) to keep on pace with Reagan in that area.
I don't think so. Even when Bush left office unemployment was 5%.
It's 14% in some places today.
Thanks Obama.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 07/25/2010 06:34 PM, wy wrote:
>> Reagan didn't save anything.
>
> Wrong.
>
> http://old.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406100915.asp
>
> Economists were vexed during the 1970s, as unemployment and inflation
> rose together to stifle economic growth and all forms of investment. The
> Keynesian Phillips-curve paradigm, whereby employment and inflation are
> supposed to move in opposite directions, completely broke down. The Ivy
> League formula of increasing the money supply to spur growth, and high
> taxes to hold back inflation, had failed utterly.
>
And will this time also.
Economics is like life, life finds a way to survive, despite stupid humans.
> Between the late 1960s and 1980, the U.S. inflation rate rose from 2
> percent to 14 percent, while the unemployment rate gradually drifted
> higher, from 4 percent to almost 10 percent. It was a period of decline
> for the country. Americans were demoralized.
>
By Socialism in government.
> As stagflation became more deeply embedded in the U.S. economy, Soviet
> adventurism in Central and South America, Asia, and elsewhere around the
> world became more pronounced. The Soviets saw the U.S. cut and run from
> Vietnam. Our Cold War adversary saw nothing but weakness emanating from
> the U.S.
>
Socialism is weak.
> Ronald Reagan changed all that. From the moment of his swearing-in in
> Jan¬ uary 1981, with his extraordinarily strong character and deep and
> abiding faith in God, Reagan acted relentlessly to revive the nation.
Reagan grew capitalism and freedom.
> More than any modern president, Reagan understood the link between
> economic growth at home and American strength overseas. It was the
> Gipper’s most brilliant insight. He acted swiftly to show our enemies
> that we would produce the necessary economic resources to do whatever it
> would take, for however long was necessary, to triumph over the
> Communist menace.
>
Something Obama doesn't understand.
> Immediately upon assuming office, he reversed the economic policy of the
> decline years. He brought down marginal tax rates, restoring the
> incentives necessary for economic growth. He gave Federal Reserve
> chairman Paul Volcker the strong ground to stand on, allowing him to
> harden the value of the dollar and slay inflation.
The Federal Reserve(Government) was the problem, Reagan said it, and
government is NOT the solution.
> At bottom, what became known as Reaganomics was a new pro-growth policy
> mix of tax incentives at the margin and stable money. But there was
Reaganomics was simply: to get government out of the way of Capitalism.
> more. The Californian launched a massive military buildup totaling about
> $1.5 trillion. He deregulated oil prices, proving the conventional
> wisdom wrong as energy became much cheaper. He launched U.S.-Canadian
> free trade. He was unyielding in his opposition to the air-traffic
> controllers’ strike, firing thousands of these government workers and
> ending the anti-growth union stranglehold on private industry. He
> created individual retirement accounts and 401(k)s, giving birth to the
> investor class. He also slashed social spending by reducing domestic
> program levels (excluding Social Security and health care) by nearly $50
> billion in 1981. That amount would come to about $90 billion today.
>
> By 1986, Reagan’s tax-reform plan left two marginal rates of 28 percent
> and 15 percent, a long stone’s throw from the 70 percent top rate he had
> inherited. His plan also cut about 2,000 pages from the tax code.
>
> Ideas matter. Results quickly followed for Reagan. Between 1982 and
> 1989, the economy grew, adjusting for inflation, by 35 percent: more
> than 4.5 percent per year. As growth was restored, tax revenues came
> flowing in. Income-tax revenues grew by 50 percent during this period
> even as tax rates dropped. By 1986, the inflation rate had fallen to 1
> percent. By the end of his term, unemployment had dropped to 5.5
> percent. Interest rates had plunged. The stock market had soared.
Reagan didn't print money like it was toilet paper.
> From July 1982 through the end of 1988, the S&P 500 averaged a near 21
> percent annual gain. Brand-new industries arose in computing, software,
> communications, and the Internet — original endeavors that completely
> streamlined and transformed the American economy for the decades to
> come. In effect, Reaganomics launched a 20-year boom, the longest
> prosperity period in the 20th century.
>
Freedom broke out.
> Reagan critics to this day continue to harp on deficits and debt, rather
> than the growth miracle produced by Reaganomics. But they are factually
> wrong. Reagan inherited a budget gap of roughly 2.5 percent of the
> economy. By the end of his two terms, he left it exactly where he found
> it. In between, he restored our economic health and revitalized our
> standing around the world.
>
So Reagan didn't increase deficits or debt as a percentage, but it grew
with the economy.
Tomaxo
> On 07/25/2010 06:34 PM, wy wrote:
> > Reagan didn't save anything.
>
> Wrong.
>
> http://old.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406100915.asp
First off, thank you including sited and linked information. That is
always a good basis for fair debate.
That said, this article, while accurately pointing out some of the
problems Reagan was elected to address, uses a lot of carefully
parsed statements to paint a picture that is not supported by the
facts.
By carefully parsing out a 21% growth statistic (for the S&P 500) for
a period within Reagan's presidency, it tries to extend a suggestion
that that growth somehow outpaced the costs associated with it.
There is a very simple, and readily available statistic for testing
the truth of this and that is the deficit to GDP ratio which was never
lower at any point in the Reagan Presidency that it had been at any
point in the Carter Presidency. In short, this means this growth did
NOT pay for it's cost, as the article tries to imply.
It also takes an enormous leap by declaring a 20 year wave of
prosperity, gleefully absorbing Clinton's 8 year presidency while
completely ignoring deep recessions of Reagan's early presidency (it
grew vastly deeper under Reagan than it had been under Carter) and
that of the end of Bush Sr's presidency and Clinton's early
presidency, whic saw the housing market and stock market crash, and
unemployment skyrocket.
For comparison, a splice of Obama's Presidency from March 5, 2009 to
April 26, 2010 would allow for a declaration that under Obama we saw
the Dow Jones industrial average grow from 6,594.44 to 11,205.03 for
about 70% growth in slightly over a year. Out of context that is a
much larger figure than if we took the Dow at Obama's innauguration
and compared it to the Dow today.
In fact, Reagan's 21% really isn't that impressive when you consider
the cost of a trippled national debt and a near complete lack of
investment in our nation's infrastructure. Clinton saw a more than
trippling of the Dow Jones Industrial Average during his presidency
and he did so while consistently reducing deficit spending.
If you want to give the Republican Congress credit for this, you will
need to explain what happened to their fiscal conservatism when that
same Republican Congress got a Republican president, under Bush and
promptly doubled the national debt.
I personally give the GOP Congress credit for forcing Clinton to hold
good on his campaign promisses to address the deficit, which he may
not have been so quick to do had he had a Congress of Yes men like
Bush did.
The success or failure of Obama's presidency will be based on whether
he learns from that rather simple observation of history.
Right now, all that is known for sure, is that he is trending pretty
much along the same lines as Reagan was at this point in his
presidency from the standpoint of impact on the economy.
>
> Economists were vexed during the 1970s, as unemployment and inflation
> rose together to stifle economic growth and all forms of investment. The
> Keynesian Phillips-curve paradigm, whereby employment and inflation are
> supposed to move in opposite directions, completely broke down. The Ivy
> League formula of increasing the money supply to spur growth, and high
> taxes to hold back inflation, had failed utterly.
>
> Between the late 1960s and 1980, the U.S. inflation rate rose from 2
> percent to 14 percent, while the unemployment rate gradually drifted
> higher, from 4 percent to almost 10 percent. It was a period of decline
> for the country. Americans were demoralized.
>
> As stagflation became more deeply embedded in the U.S. economy, Soviet
> adventurism in Central and South America, Asia, and elsewhere around the
> world became more pronounced. The Soviets saw the U.S. cut and run from
> Vietnam. Our Cold War adversary saw nothing but weakness emanating from
> the U.S.
>
> Ronald Reagan changed all that. From the moment of his swearing-in in
> Jan� uary 1981, with his extraordinarily strong character and deep and
> abiding faith in God, Reagan acted relentlessly to revive the nation.
>
> More than any modern president, Reagan understood the link between
> economic growth at home and American strength overseas. It was the
> Gipper�s most brilliant insight. He acted swiftly to show our enemies
> that we would produce the necessary economic resources to do whatever it
> would take, for however long was necessary, to triumph over the
> Communist menace.
>
> Immediately upon assuming office, he reversed the economic policy of the
> decline years. He brought down marginal tax rates, restoring the
> incentives necessary for economic growth. He gave Federal Reserve
> chairman Paul Volcker the strong ground to stand on, allowing him to
> harden the value of the dollar and slay inflation.
>
> At bottom, what became known as Reaganomics was a new pro-growth policy
> mix of tax incentives at the margin and stable money. But there was
> more. The Californian launched a massive military buildup totaling about
> $1.5 trillion. He deregulated oil prices, proving the conventional
> wisdom wrong as energy became much cheaper. He launched U.S.-Canadian
> free trade. He was unyielding in his opposition to the air-traffic
> controllers� strike, firing thousands of these government workers and
> ending the anti-growth union stranglehold on private industry. He
> created individual retirement accounts and 401(k)s, giving birth to the
> investor class. He also slashed social spending by reducing domestic
> program levels (excluding Social Security and health care) by nearly $50
> billion in 1981. That amount would come to about $90 billion today.
>
> By 1986, Reagan�s tax-reform plan left two marginal rates of 28 percent
> and 15 percent, a long stone�s throw from the 70 percent top rate he had
> inherited. His plan also cut about 2,000 pages from the tax code.
>
> Ideas matter. Results quickly followed for Reagan. Between 1982 and
> 1989, the economy grew, adjusting for inflation, by 35 percent: more
> than 4.5 percent per year. As growth was restored, tax revenues came
> flowing in. Income-tax revenues grew by 50 percent during this period
> even as tax rates dropped. By 1986, the inflation rate had fallen to 1
> percent. By the end of his term, unemployment had dropped to 5.5
> percent. Interest rates had plunged. The stock market had soared.
>
> From July 1982 through the end of 1988, the S&P 500 averaged a near 21
> percent annual gain. Brand-new industries arose in computing, software,
> communications, and the Internet � original endeavors that completely
Tomaxo
>
> with the economy.
Look up deficit to GDP ratio statistics for Reagan's presidency and
compare them to the same for Carter's presidency.
If you find a single instance of Reagans deficit to GDP ratio being
anything other than worse than any single instance under Carter, get
back to me on it.
Reagan trippled the national debt......that's another way of saying he
purchased short term growth through deficit spending.
In a recession this works by helping to prime the economic pump when
its stagnated. For anything beyond the short term it only works if
the deficit spending is going towards infrastructural projects that
enhance commerce (roads, bridges, power plants, etc).
During Reagan it did not go towards infrastructural spending (except
for those minority of military projects that had a direct free market
application). It went to tax cuts, which never produced enough growth
to offset their cost, but had numerous disasterous consequences in the
long run that ruined the presidency of Bush Sr and continued to have
negative impact well into the Clinton presidency.
Tomaxo
> I don't think so. Even when Bush left office unemployment was 5%.
Wow, you guys are more desperate than I thought..
Which Bush are you talking about? Bush Sr., for whom unemployment was
at 7.3% or Bush Jr., for whom it was 7.7% when they left office?
>
> It's 14% in some places today.
No doubt it was 14% in "some places" during each of the Bush
Presidencies too.
If this type of B.S. is the best you guys have regarding the economy,
I'm betting the GOP loses seats this November. What a hillarious
shocker that would be for the Fox/Drudge/Rush fantasty world residents
of America.
> Thanks Obama.
Astro Dyne
> subhuman turd.
Still jamming your nose up the sphincters of everyone who threatens you,
eh? Poor little skidmark. Do you ever dream of people talking to you
like the adult you will never be?
'Shit happens'
---Traitorous 'Spammy' Sam's reply to the fact that 34 Americans
died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS Liberty.
Spammy is a gutless coward who has never served his country in
uniform.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Pete10016 wrote:
>> On 7/24/2010 11:59 PM, Tomaxo wrote:
>>> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
Obama isn't on the same page, he's not even in the same book!!
Obama is half way through Marx's communist manifesto.
Tomaxo
> > Pete10016 wrote:
> >> On 7/24/2010 11:59 PM, Tomaxo wrote:
> >>> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
>
>
> Obama isn't on the same page, he's not even in the same book!!
Yet, he is successfully leading two war efforts while guiding the
economy to a faster recovery that Reagan was able to at this point in
his presidency.
>
>
>
> Obama is half way through Marx's communist manifesto.
So, "marxism" is causing Obama to be outpacing Reagan on economic
recovery at this point in his presidency?
I would think not.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Obama is killing this economy, it was struggling before Obama and Obama
is killing the economy.... The wars are getting worse and more people
killed than before Obama was elected, Obama's taking victory and turning
it into defeat. Obama hates America as much as all the Marxist people
that he surrounds himself with.
He wrote in his book that he was seeking out Marxist professors and we
can see today that he seeks out Marxists to put in all the government
jobs he can.
COL. BILL KILGORE
"Tomaxo" <tom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7e7cdf43-5279-4a80...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Has anyone ever told you how full of unadulterated shit you are, you dumb
fuck? Oh that's right, they have.
Frank Etch
socks in the same thread and now returning to bitch and moan about it
under his (Timothy S. Watson's) most pathetic sock Proven Fraud and
Disgrace COL. BILL KILGORE wrote:
<snip>
snicker
Franklin Etch: Rooting Out Fraud and Disgrace in the Land of the Free
Oz
> The success or failure of Obama's presidency will be based on whether
> he learns from that rather simple observation of history.
Obama is too arrogant and stupid to benefit from any facts, which is
the reason his pol numbers are the same as your IQ. He's headed for a
defeat that will equal Carter's run for a second term. The quicker he
and fellow liberal rubber stampers are gone, the better for
America.......the socialistic, America-hating fuckers have got this
country into a tailspin. To equate Obama to Reagan should really
embarrass you. While Americans embraced Reagan, they can't wait to
flush that Muslim turd down the chute. Let him go back to Kenya where
he was born. He didn't legally qualify to be president in the first
place.
Sid9
"Oz" <wizardr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0d0c1924-cc88-4193...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
.
You have just demonstrated that YOU are stupid.
You have no ability to judge a person at all.
Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him stupid.
Reagan was not stupid...he simply was not very bright...You want stupid?
bush,jr, Bachmann, Angle, Rand....that's a few samples of stupid.
I disagree with Gingrich, but he's smart.
McCain's not very swift. That's why the Navy dumped him
He proved it when he demonstrated a lack of judgment by selecting Palin.
Obama is one of the smartest politicians we've had since Bill Clinton.
Tomaxo
Hey Frank,
Have you ever noticed how completely unhinged Timothy S. Watson (AKA
"Col. Bill Kilgore", Jak, TheLoneRanger, OZ, etc, etc, etc, etc)
ALWAYS gets when confronted with reminders of the ease with which
others can accomplish actual discourse on the issues posted, but he
can not, under any of his by-now hundreds of socks, though whom he
posts thousands of unread posts weekly?
Oz
> "Oz" <wizardryofoz...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You arrogant, slow-witted fuck......just who the hell are you to
determine who's smart and not. Go fetch yourself a functioning brain,
asshole.
Oz
Hey twitbrain, if you think we're all one and the same, then you're
more full of shit than ever imagined.
Sid9
.
All you did was call me names....you didn't challenge a single fact or
opinion I posted.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> "Oz" <wizardr...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ff2b5640-9072-43f8...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 29, 12:32 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "Oz" <wizardryofoz...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:0d0c1924-cc88-4193...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> The success or failure of Obama's presidency will be based on whether
>>> >> he learns from that rather simple observation of history.
Obama is already a failure in the USA, he's a Socialist and America has
a Constitution that won't allow Socialism put on us.
Obama is tearing up the Constitution and he'll always be remembered as
the President that hates our Constitution, and therefore hates America.
COL. BILL KILGORE
"Oz" <wizardr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:787eaaf9-7a13-410c...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Lou's been inhaling too much windshield wiper fluid.
Gov
"Pete10016" <Pe...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:goWdndv4z5yOJ9DR...@giganews.com...
One could see why you "think" everything is bad "now". If you even had a
clue, you wouldn't make a fool out of yourself. Unemployment statistics are
there for anyone to find. I suggest you learn facts, b/4 inserting your
foot in mouth. Bush left office with unemployment hovering around 8%. Bush
took office with it around 4%.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
Gov
"First Post." <Progressives=Socia...@Invalid.org> wrote in message
news:6uho465aug7ducds1...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:34:29 -0400, "COL. BILL KILGORE"
> <wski...@us.patriots.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Tomaxo" <tom...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> Obama Still Outpacing Reagan On Economic Recovery!
>>>
>>> At this point in Obama's presidency, he has outpaced Reagan for the
>>> same period in Dow Jones Industrial Average growth while incurring a
>>> lower increase in unemployment.
>>>
>>> Considering Reagan was trending towards one of the greatest Re-
>>> election landslides in American history, this bodes well for the
>>> president.
>>>
>>> The Stat's:
>>>
>>> At this point in Reagan's presidency (July 24th of his 2nd year in
>>> office), the Dow Jones Industrial average had grown from 950.68 on the
>>> day of his inauguration to 1,231.17, representing a 29.5% increase.
>>>
>>> At this point in Obama's presidency, the DJIA has grown from 7,949.09
>>> to 10,424.62, representing a 31.1% increase.
>>>
>>> At this point in Reagan's presidency, the most recent report (June,
>>> 1983) showed that unemployment had risen to 10.1% (from 7.5% in
>>> January of 81), marking an increase in unemployment of 2.6%.
>>>
>>> At this point in Obama's presidency, the most recent report (June,
>>> 2010) shows that unemployment has risen to 9.5% (from 7.7% in January
>>> of 09), marking an increase in unemployment of 1.8%.
>>>
>>> While the final tally on national debt increase will not be known for
>>> years, Obama would have to triple the national debt (to over 30
>>> trillion dollars) to keep on pace with Reagan in that area.
>>
>>on the grease-pit wall lately Senor Velasquez, Reagan left office in 1989
>>and has since died - just as your mutt's presidency will die in 2012.
>>That's the funniest thing here - you know it - hence your hysterical and
>>ridiculous numerical comparisons of two different POTUS's from completely
>>different eras. Moron.
>
> What else can be expected when they can't produce anything factual
> about Obama that can be considered a positive.
> Tearing someone else down in order to build up another has been a
> primary tactic in left wing politics for a long time.
> It will always be "what about Bush, what about Reagan" with them as
> they cannot point to single thing thing that Obama can actually be
> praised for regarding benefiting the nation.
FACT: He adverted Bush's recession, from going into a depression.
FACT: He eliminated Bush's/Cheney's Mexican Pilot Program of allowing 100
Mexican trucking companies from running wild in the USA.
FACT: He "loaned" money, with INTEREST to help keep American Financial
Institutions from collapsing. VS Bush's give away NO STRINGS approach of
close to $1 Trillion dollars to CEO's.
You want me to keep going on with FACTS, or would you rather keep sounding
off like the babbling fool you are?