I gave you the BLS numbers which you probably don't understand. Your chart doesn't refute anything I posted and goes all the way to 2007. I don't even think you understand what your chart shows or what you are talking about. Obviously you have no idea what leadership responsibilities are.
Kobie;1062378619]I know what the "misery index" was; I just think the "misery index" is a stupid statistic based on adding together two arbitrary, often unrelated figures.
By ALL economic standards? That's a pantload if I ever saw one. We lost exponentially more jobs from the 2008-09 recession than the 81-82 one. As in, not even remotely comparable. Real GDP saw a bigger hit. Of course, then there's the entire foreclosure problem, since the cause of the 2008 recession was the bursting of the housing bubble (and all the accounting shenanigans that came with), which wasn't what caused the early 80s recession. The entire cause of that recession was overly contractionary Fed policy designed to combat inflation. I don't give a rat's ass what you lived and worked through; you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, Reagan flew in on his golden pegasus and singlehandedly pulled us back from ... an economic hiccup that was insignificant enough to be self-correctable. I'm certainly not saying his policies had NOTHING to do with the recovery; however, to claim that the early-80s recession was worse is asinine.
I know this. You are obviously praising Reagan for pulling us out of a baby recession by tripling the debt but can;t seem to shut up about how horrible Obama is even though he pulled us out of a severe depression by increasing the debt by a mere 45%
Hey, kid, chuckle away but the laugh is on you. You have been given the opportunity to prove me wrong but you continue to cite your own personal opinions backed up by nothing. I spent 35 years in the business world and am retired. I can beat you up all day with actual economic data but what is the use, you don't understand any of it.
Uh, Obama's increased revenue by over $1 Trillion.You sure are fixated on the tripling of the debt but sell that bs to your other Obamabots. Debt is only bad if you don't have the return to pay for that debt, Reagan generated a 60% increase in Income Tax revenue from his three years of tax cuts and before you go on about raising taxes, he didn't raise income taxes and that is where the increase of 60% shows up so tell me how you increase income tax revenue by cutting taxes three years in a row? Hint:17 million new job holders.
Please tell me how this recession that Obama inherited affected you and your family? What was your mortgage rate then vs now? You call it severe depression? that is total ignorance, there was no depression but I could make a case that the 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers today are in a depression and the lack of Obama leadership is keeping them there.
Oh, really? do you know what the misery index was then? By all economic standards the 81-82 recession hurt Americans much worse than this one, I lived and worked during both, what is your experience? You see, you are comparing results of this recession to the results of the 81-82 recession ignoring the vacuum of leadership displayed by Obama and the leadership exhibited by Reagan.
Uh, Obama's increased revenue by over $1 Trillion.
So, that must mean Obama's debt is good. Right?
Dude, you prove yourself more wrong with every post in a classic case of open mouth insert foot.
Conservative Logic: Tripling debt,good; adding less than 50% to a debt, bad. What's the difference? THe tripling occurred under the Conservative's idol: Ron-Ron; while the slight increase is happening under a Democrat with a funny sounding name.
His mom was an American Citizen in good standing...
Yes, I know all that. You were saying I was wrong about him being a Mexican-American.
Why don't you just call yourself a concerned US citizen?
Besides, "Mexican American" is a bit redundant considering Mexico is in North America.
What are you blabbing about? None of what you said here is true.Seriously?
Let me guess you heard all of that on MSNBC?
It's simply amazing how you Obamabots throw a blinds eye at the democrats spending and blatant fascism...
You do realize Obama has tripled the debt - the same debt that you claim bush tripled??
Yeah all this social welfare costs money you know?...
He has no Mexican in him whatsoever. That was my original point that obviously went whoosh right over your little head.Yes, I know all that. You were saying I was wrong about him being a Mexican-American.
Why should I call myself a "concerned US citizen"? As opposed to what? We are calling Ted Cruz a Mexican American because that's what he is, just "American" is not specific enough for the conversation. Besides, it's referring to nationality, not geography.
What are you blabbing about? None of what you said here is true.
What does 2007 have to do with it? Obama saw increased rev for every year he was in office, beginning in 2009.Revenue is down since 2007.
2007 2,567,985
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
2010 2,162,706
2011 2,303,466
2012 2,450,164
2013 estimate 2,712,045
It might be slightly up this year, but only after the govts borrowed 4 trillion more, so is it real? And its not only Obamas fault. Congress approves the bills first.
No, it is very true - you just cant accept it...
Nonsense. The debt Reagan took on handcuffed this nation for decades. We're still mired in Reagan's debt.
Why should I call myself a "concerned US citizen"? As opposed to what? We are calling Ted Cruz a Mexican American because that's what he is, just "American" is not specific enough for the conversation. Besides, it's referring to nationality, not geography.
Actually, you can't prove it.
That's funny! Yeah, the nation was really handcuffed in the '90's with that booming economy created by Reagan's policies! It just petered out at the end, when Clinton handed GWB a recession created by his tax hikes.
But, I guess, the $6 trillion (and counting) of debt that Obama has strapped us with, that's not a problem. LOL! Liberal logic is funny.
You assert much, substantiate nothing.You've said enough for me to assess...
No I can't prove it, but your yapper provides evidence hence a theory...
If it matters few things can be proved and all there is - is evidence....
Ah...the Boom during Clinton's presidency was
due to Reagan, and the bust while Bush governed for two terms was due to Clinton. But the mess Obama has to deal with is all on him.
Right Wing logic :roll:
Sorry, I disagree. Spending originates in the house. The senate approves or disapproves the spending bills.No. Republicans cannot choose to simply fund portions of the law that they don't like. The proper way would be to try to bring changes in the law through legislation. However, they know that they don't have the backing to do that so they are resorting to gamesmanship and essentially to holding a gun to the head of the American public. It is immature and childish and the teabaggers are destroying what is left of the GOP's credibility.
1) The republicans are the majority in the house.Who you elected is Irrelevant. That minorities' tactics ARE the issue here.
And you did NOT Back your claim of what is going on and who is responsible.
Your last was Indeed Empty GARBAGE/Conspiratorial innuendo and you have FAILED to put any meat on the bone.
My post to j-mac remains Untouched by any coherent or honest reply.
The HACKERY on the top half of the board is disgraceful, and you are one of the main knee-jerk purveyors that make logical discussion impossible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?