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.
Nov of 1980, UE was 7.5%, Nov of 1984, it was 7.2% (from the Carter malaise) and then it continued to drop all the way down to mid 5%. So yeah, job growth did take off under Reagan.
When obama took over, UE was 7.7% and has INCREASED to what it is today 9.5%. It wasn't supposed to rise above 8%, according to obama.
LOL
you JUMP from 1980 to 1984 - skipping Reagan's ENTIRE first term (like somehow it NEVER HAPPENED) and then accuse ME of REVISIONIST HISTORY?
Do you realise how FOOLISH and DECEITFUL that is?
If not, you should.
You are a PRIME example of those who religiously follow the GOP Dogma without ANY concern for the FACTS.
Yes - after nearly FOUR LONG YEARS Reagan FINALLY managed to get the unemployment rate down .3% from what it was when he took office.
.3%!!!!!!!
WOW. Quite an achievement for FOUR YEARS eh?
What you deliberately neglect to mention is that in those intervening FOUR YEARS, the UE rate skyrocked by 50% to the highest point since the Great Depression - higher even than it's gotten under Obama.
You seem to have a SEVERE case of glossing over the numbers so - I'll lay that out for you month by month.
So yeah, job growth DID take off under Reagan - but not until AFTER his tax cuts were largely repealed - and not UNTIL all his budget-busting deficit spending kicked in.
THOSE are the facts.
Oh, and the UE rate under Obama is now FALLING - and has been for SIX MONTHS NOW. Obama had increasing UE for 8 months before the trend REVERSED. Reagan didn't see his UE rate begin it's big fall for TWO YEARS. Eight months for Obama vs two years for Reagan. Pretty good comparison I'd say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
When the democrats took over congress in 2007, the deficit was $160 Billion. Since they've had the reins it has increased to $1.4 Trillion. In case you didn't know the structure of the federal government, CONGRESS appropriates money, not the executive.
So what you are saying then is that because there is no relationship between Reagan's tax cuts and the improvement of the US economy in the 1980's - but there WAS a relationshop between the increase in government spending (as you pointed out - controlled by CONGRESS (in Reagan's case a DEMOCRATIC Congress) and the economic boom of the 1980's that it was the Democratic Congress which should get the credit.
Hmmmmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem? Ohhhhhh...revisionist history. Interest rates were 20+%, gas rationing across the nation, high inflation and a general malaise around the country.
Reagans tax cuts resulted in record revenue to the Treasury, which came from the massive job growth based on his policies.
Did I EVER say Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem?
You seem to have serious problems with your reading comprehension.
LOL
I think VERY HIGHLY of Reagan - and voted for him TWICE. I'm just "fair and balanced" enough to recognize both the GOOD and the BAD that happened on his watch.
The record revenue to the treasury was NOT due to the tax cuts (which had been largely REPEALED ) but rather due to the MASSIVE SPENDING of the arms buildup (which grew and grew and grew during his 2 terms).
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-27-2010 at 09:24 AM..
He's in two unpopular wars, in the midst of a very slow, nearly jobless, very large recession, in the middle of the greatest environmental disaster of our time, has a few million TV viewers suckered into believing the crap that Fox News puts out is some form of truth, AND has managed to pass huge new laws through Congress (each of which upset different parts of the public, whittling away more support).
Even with all that going on, he has a 47-48% approval rating. That's pretty darn good, and just imagine if the economy really starts to turn around, we are largely out of Iraq, and Republicans still can't manage to come up with an idea other than cutting taxes (and generally sucking at running government).
Although it's way too far out to make a real prediction, Obama is currently looking good for re-election.
The economy is at a dead cat bounce right now as the stimulus money is exhausted and there ain't no more coming in anytime soon. With taxes rising next year for the poor and middle class, looking for more pain coming. Haven't even scratched the surface on the built up inflation headed down the pike. Right now it's only hidden in stuff like beer (6 pack prices have risen about 10-15% in just a year), but Fall 2010 tuition is looking mighty expensive for many, private loans on sites like prosper have risen dramatically in interest rate, etc etc
No, it's looking very bad for Obama considering we're at the apex of this dead cat bounce and he doesn't have enough approval to win an election.
The economy is at a dead cat bounce right now as the stimulus money is exhausted and there ain't no more coming in anytime soon. With taxes rising next year for the poor and middle class, looking for more pain coming. Haven't even scratched the surface on the built up inflation headed down the pike. Right now it's only hidden in stuff like beer (6 pack prices have risen about 10-15% in just a year), but Fall 2010 tuition is looking mighty expensive for many, private loans on sites like prosper have risen dramatically in interest rate, etc etc
No, it's looking very bad for Obama considering we're at the apex of this dead cat bounce and he doesn't have enough approval to win an election.
LOL
you JUMP from 1980 to 1984 - skipping Reagan's ENTIRE first term (like somehow it NEVER HAPPENED) and then accuse ME of REVISIONIST HISTORY?
Do you realise how FOOLISH and DECEITFUL that is?
If not, you should.
You are a PRIME example of those who religiously follow the GOP Dogma without ANY concern for the FACTS.
Yes - after nearly FOUR LONG YEARS Reagan FINALLY managed to get the unemployment rate down .3% from what it was when he took office.
.3%!!!!!!!
WOW. Quite an achievement for FOUR YEARS eh?
What you deliberately neglect to mention is that in those intervening FOUR YEARS, the UE rate skyrocked by 50% to the highest point since the Great Depression - higher even than it's gotten under Obama.
You seem to have a SEVERE case of glossing over the numbers so - I'll lay that out for you month by month.
So yeah, job growth DID take off under Reagan - but not until AFTER his tax cuts were largely repealed - and not UNTIL all his budget-busting deficit spending kicked in.
THOSE are the facts.
Oh, and the UE rate under Obama is now FALLING - and has been for SIX MONTHS NOW. Obama had increasing UE for 8 months before the trend REVERSED. Reagan didn't see his UE rate begin it's big fall for TWO YEARS. Eight months for Obama vs two years for Reagan. Pretty good comparison I'd say.
So what you are saying then is that because there is no relationship between Reagan's tax cuts and the improvement of the US economy in the 1980's - but there WAS a relationshop between the increase in government spending (as you pointed out - controlled by CONGRESS (in Reagan's case a DEMOCRATIC Congress) and the economic boom of the 1980's that it was the Democratic Congress which should get the credit.
Hmmmmm.
Did I EVER say Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem?
You seem to have serious problems with your reading comprehension.
LOL
I think VERY HIGHLY of Reagan - and voted for him TWICE. I'm just "fair and balanced" enough to recognize both the GOOD and the BAD that happened on his watch.
The record revenue to the treasury was NOT due to the tax cuts (which had been largely REPEALED ) but rather due to the MASSIVE SPENDING of the arms buildup (which grew and grew and grew during his 2 terms).
LOL
you JUMP from 1980 to 1984 - skipping Reagan's ENTIRE first term (like somehow it NEVER HAPPENED) and then accuse ME of REVISIONIST HISTORY?
Do you realise how FOOLISH and DECEITFUL that is?
If not, you should.
You are a PRIME example of those who religiously follow the GOP Dogma without ANY concern for the FACTS.
Yes - after nearly FOUR LONG YEARS Reagan FINALLY managed to get the unemployment rate down .3% from what it was when he took office.
.3%!!!!!!!
WOW. Quite an achievement for FOUR YEARS eh?
What you deliberately neglect to mention is that in those intervening FOUR YEARS, the UE rate skyrocked by 50% to the highest point since the Great Depression - higher even than it's gotten under Obama.
You seem to have a SEVERE case of glossing over the numbers so - I'll lay that out for you month by month.
So yeah, job growth DID take off under Reagan - but not until AFTER his tax cuts were largely repealed - and not UNTIL all his budget-busting deficit spending kicked in.
THOSE are the facts.
Oh, and the UE rate under Obama is now FALLING - and has been for SIX MONTHS NOW. Obama had increasing UE for 8 months before the trend REVERSED. Reagan didn't see his UE rate begin it's big fall for TWO YEARS. Eight months for Obama vs two years for Reagan. Pretty good comparison I'd say.
So what you are saying then is that because there is no relationship between Reagan's tax cuts and the improvement of the US economy in the 1980's - but there WAS a relationshop between the increase in government spending (as you pointed out - controlled by CONGRESS (in Reagan's case a DEMOCRATIC Congress) and the economic boom of the 1980's that it was the Democratic Congress which should get the credit.
Hmmmmm.
Did I EVER say Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem?
You seem to have serious problems with your reading comprehension.
LOL
I think VERY HIGHLY of Reagan - and voted for him TWICE. I'm just "fair and balanced" enough to recognize both the GOOD and the BAD that happened on his watch.
The record revenue to the treasury was NOT due to the tax cuts (which had been largely REPEALED ) but rather due to the MASSIVE SPENDING of the arms buildup (which grew and grew and grew during his 2 terms).
LOL
you JUMP from 1980 to 1984 - skipping Reagan's ENTIRE first term (like somehow it NEVER HAPPENED) and then accuse ME of REVISIONIST HISTORY?
Do you realise how FOOLISH and DECEITFUL that is?
If not, you should.
You are a PRIME example of those who religiously follow the GOP Dogma without ANY concern for the FACTS.
Yes - after nearly FOUR LONG YEARS Reagan FINALLY managed to get the unemployment rate down .3% from what it was when he took office.
.3%!!!!!!!
WOW. Quite an achievement for FOUR YEARS eh?
What you deliberately neglect to mention is that in those intervening FOUR YEARS, the UE rate skyrocked by 50% to the highest point since the Great Depression - higher even than it's gotten under Obama.
You seem to have a SEVERE case of glossing over the numbers so - I'll lay that out for you month by month.
So yeah, job growth DID take off under Reagan - but not until AFTER his tax cuts were largely repealed - and not UNTIL all his budget-busting deficit spending kicked in.
THOSE are the facts.
Oh, and the UE rate under Obama is now FALLING - and has been for SIX MONTHS NOW. Obama had increasing UE for 8 months before the trend REVERSED. Reagan didn't see his UE rate begin it's big fall for TWO YEARS. Eight months for Obama vs two years for Reagan. Pretty good comparison I'd say.
So what you are saying then is that because there is no relationship between Reagan's tax cuts and the improvement of the US economy in the 1980's - but there WAS a relationshop between the increase in government spending (as you pointed out - controlled by CONGRESS (in Reagan's case a DEMOCRATIC Congress) and the economic boom of the 1980's that it was the Democratic Congress which should get the credit.
Hmmmmm.
Did I EVER say Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem?
You seem to have serious problems with your reading comprehension.
LOL
I think VERY HIGHLY of Reagan - and voted for him TWICE. I'm just "fair and balanced" enough to recognize both the GOOD and the BAD that happened on his watch.
The record revenue to the treasury was NOT due to the tax cuts (which had been largely REPEALED ) but rather due to the MASSIVE SPENDING of the arms buildup (which grew and grew and grew during his 2 terms).
Ken
Shame on you! You attempt to befuddle with....FACTS!!
you JUMP from 1980 to 1984 - skipping Reagan's ENTIRE first term (like somehow it NEVER HAPPENED) and then accuse ME of REVISIONIST HISTORY?
Do you realise how FOOLISH and DECEITFUL that is?
Hey, did you happen to follow along regarding the post I was responding to? That post made the claim that Reagan was reelected even though UE was 10%.
Go back and re-read. Do you realize how foolish and deceitful it is to change the goal post mid game?
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.
