Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1.) $2.5 trillion dollars on trickle down tax cuts. (These tax cuts decreased our governments revenues by $2.5 trillion dollars, and that money went to our deficits and national debt.)
4.) $100's of billions of dollars (annually) on new federal subsidy programs to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. Spending Under President George W. Bush | Mercatus
Your premise is wrong. Obama spent more than Bush period. That's a fact.
The article is looking at the slowest percentage wise. You didn't even read it did you? You saw a title and jumped.
Of course Bush spent recklessly as Obama has and does. Your failure is thinking they are different. Theft is theft. Manipulate the economy. Hand pick the winners and losers and bail out your buddies.
Reagan's economic plan was to do trickle down tax cuts, these are tax cuts for large corporations and the rich. Reagan said if we give the rich tax cuts they will create jobs.
Obama's economic plan is to lower taxes on the middle class and do stimulus packages.
I have pay more taxes than I ever did under GW Bush. I have to call you out on that! The Obama Years have been the most challenged, because the Administration is "Anti Success"
If you have money you are the "Devil" Mentality.
Health care is too expensive and when do recall the us Gov. forcing you to buy a product!
the rich to create Opportunity for the middle class whom have like myself earned every dollar!
Oh forgot I got to give .50 cents back to the Sate and Fed!
Trickle down works just fine when the US Gov steps aside and do what they were mandated to in the US Constitution.
Obama has tried to give the middle class tax cuts (but republicans stop him.)
You are trying to compare apples to cars. Reagen was able to get the coperation from both parties in both Houses and they were at least cordial towards one another. This abomination to sanity that we have now were plotting to unsurp him BEFORE he even got into the Oval office and have been fighting against EVERYTHING that he has done ever since, even if it would help the country or not!
Obama is the equivalent of a class room bully. Bully and attack everyone and then wonder why no one wants to play with him. Tell me every time he talks he isn't attacking republicans. Do you really expect them to want to work with him?
When someone is elected president they are supposed to be president to "all" Americans, yet Obama attacks half of the American people.
1.) $2.5 trillion dollars on trickle down tax cuts. (These tax cuts decreased our governments revenues by $2.5 trillion dollars, and that money went to our deficits and national debt.)
4.) $100's of billions of dollars (annually) on new federal subsidy programs to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. Spending Under President George W. Bush | Mercatus
LOL that people are still trying to push this con. As for (3) Afghanistan, it was strongly supported by Pres. Obama and most democrats. So that point is a clear fail.
Your premise is wrong. Obama spent more than Bush period. That's a fact.
The article is looking at the slowest percentage wise. You didn't even read it did you? You saw a title and jumped.
Of course Bush spent recklessly as Obama has and does. Your failure is thinking they are different. Theft is theft. Manipulate the economy. Hand pick the winners and losers and bail out your buddies.
It's exactly like a petulant coke addict who was doing an 8 ball every night who got dragged kicking and screaming into only doing 2 grams a night and then 1 gram a night and then .5 a gram a night. He didn't stop doing coke because he wanted to, he stopped because he had no money left and the adults around him forced him to slow his habit down.
And that wouldn't have been so bad but then the petulant coke addict paraded himself all over TV and the news claiming how strong he was to kick his coke habit.
We tend to forget that Ronald Reagan in 1980 inherited an economic mess arguably as bad as that inherited by Pres Barack Obama. I am old enough to remember it. Like today, I heard lots of accounts of guys with graduate degrees driving cabs and working at restaurants. When Reagan took office in Jan '81, unemployment was 7.5% and rising. There was double digit inflation, and 20% interest rates. GDP "growth" was actually negative.
Reagan promised and delivered a set of remedies guided by conservative/free market ideology. Unemployment continued to go up, but by 1983, as his policies started to kick in, it went down and reached 5.3 percent in his last full month in office. GDP grew at a healthy 4.3% in 1983, and zoomed to over 7% in 1984. Reaganomics had proven to be a success by 1984, and Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, losing only 1 state plus DC.
Similarly Pres. Obama inherited an economic mess. His prescription was a stark contrast to Reagan's. He prescribed a 'stimulus'package (i.e. massive gov't spending), welfare benefits, higher taxes, unemployment benefits etc.--all the classic liberal ideas. Six years later we have somewhat stabilized, but we still clearly have a problem in generating jobs and growth. GDP growth last year was an anemic 1.9%. What jobs are being created are overwhelmingly (approx. 75%) part time. WASHINGTON: Most 2013 job growth is in part-time work, survey suggests | Economy | McClatchy DC
This was a kind of lab experiment, and the result seems pretty clear.
Your argument was to go into detail about Reagan recession(wrongly i might add), but gloss over the Bush Recession as if it was less or similar and that is entirely untrue.
1. IN February 2009 the unemployment rate was 8.3 and GDP growth was a negative 5.4 in The First quarter of 2009.
2. Reagan didnt inherit a recession. the Carter Recession started and ended in 1980, before Reagan was even elected. The Reagan recession didnt even start until July of 1981.
3. When President Obama took office, he lowered taxes, not raised them Or did you think President Bush put the payroll tax credits in place ? The Bush tax cuts didnt expire til Jan 1, 2013 by the way.
Because there is no such thing as trickle down. The idea was to have less taxes so we the people can spend our own money to stimulate the economy. Why have government stimulate the economy? So they can reward losers who just happen to be their buddies? Government is the ones responsible for economic booms and busts. And the bust part outweighs the boom part.
The wonderful Thomas Sowell said
"No economist has ever advocated a "trickle-down" theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics who either willfully distort or misunderstand the actual stated goals of their political opponents"
Money invested in new business ventures is first paid out to employees, suppliers, and contractors. Only some time later, if the business is profitable, does money return to the business owners—but in the absence of a profit motive, which is reduced in the aggregate by a raise in marginal tax rates in the upper tiers, this activity does not occur
It's just a catchy phrase that people cling to. Like "Yes We Can"
You said there is no such thing as trickle down economics.
But here's a source about Reaganomics. It clearly says in the first paragraph Reagan used trickle down economics.
We tend to forget that Ronald Reagan in 1980 inherited an economic mess arguably as bad as that inherited by Pres Barack Obama. I am old enough to remember it. Like today, I heard lots of accounts of guys with graduate degrees driving cabs and working at restaurants. When Reagan took office in Jan '81, unemployment was 7.5% and rising. There was double digit inflation, and 20% interest rates. GDP "growth" was actually negative.
Reagan promised and delivered a set of remedies guided by conservative/free market ideology. Unemployment continued to go up, but by 1983, as his policies started to kick in, it went down and reached 5.3 percent in his last full month in office. GDP grew at a healthy 4.3% in 1983, and zoomed to over 7% in 1984. Reaganomics had proven to be a success by 1984, and Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, losing only 1 state plus DC.
Similarly Pres. Obama inherited an economic mess. His prescription was a stark contrast to Reagan's. He prescribed a 'stimulus'package (i.e. massive gov't spending), welfare benefits, higher taxes, unemployment benefits etc.--all the classic liberal ideas. Six years later we have somewhat stabilized, but we still clearly have a problem in generating jobs and growth. GDP growth last year was an anemic 1.9%. What jobs are being created are overwhelmingly (approx. 75%) part time. WASHINGTON: Most 2013 job growth is in part-time work, survey suggests | Economy | McClatchy DC
This was a kind of lab experiment, and the result seems pretty clear.
The big difference-
1. Reagan promoted the private sector- Obama abhors the private sector
2. Reagan cut taxes- Obama increased them
3. Reagan promoted American exceptionalism- Obama apologizes for America's "offenses"
4. Reagan grew up working for a living- Obama grew up surrounded by communists
5. Reagan supported limitations on government- Obama supports more government
6. Reagan supported fewer regulations- Obama supports more regulations
7. Reagan had a strong foreign policy- Obama has a weak foreign policy
Your premise is wrong. Obama spent more than Bush period. That's a fact.
The article is looking at the slowest percentage wise. You didn't even read it did you? You saw a title and jumped.
Of course Bush spent recklessly as Obama has and does. Your failure is thinking they are different. Theft is theft. Manipulate the economy. Hand pick the winners and losers and bail out your buddies.
No, its not. Simply math tells you President Obama hasnt spent more.
My guess is you were arguing that President Obama's deficits add up to more than President Bush's and even that isnt true.
No, its not. Simply math tells you President Obama hasnt spent more.
My guess is you were arguing that President Obama's deficits add up to more than President Bush's and even that isnt true.
You know darn well Obama will spend more on both spending, and deficits, before he leaves the White House..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Obama Years have been the most challenged, because the Administration is "Anti Success"
