Here's how badly Democrats have to screw up to lose the election[W:558]

[Conservative]

Do tell then... go to the numbers at my link and tell me what I'm supposed to see that I don't. Give me the insight on your xray vision that sees through BLS numbers and comes up with your BS interpretation. I posted the numbers. They refute you and your reagan-worshipping. You have been exposed for all to see.

Pretty simple Reagan took an economy that was in a double dip recession and took employment from 99 million to 116 million and doubled GDP adding 1.7 trillion to the debt

Obama took an economy in a bad recession with 142 million working Americans and today that is 149 million and has added 7.6 trillion to the debt.

Don't care about your links or your reports only BLS, BEA, and Treasury data.

 

[poweRob]

Pretty simple Reagan took an economy that was in a double dip recession and took employment from 99 million to 116 million and doubled GDP adding 1.7 trillion to the debt

Obama took an economy in a bad recession with 142 million working Americans and today that is 149 million and has added 7.6 trillion to the debt.

Don't care about your links or your reports only BLS, BEA, and Treasury data.

Most presidents since FDR had higher percentage GDP growth than reagan did as my links showed... but lets just ignore that.

 

[calamity]

So what, again why do you care and what is your proposal? How did any rich person prevent you or anyone else from becoming rich?

The GOP does not want a well-to-do blue collar economy. Labor is not the GOP's friend. So, that they whittle it down when in power is no surprise.

What you should glean though from the above chart is the amount of whittling done by Republican policy. Note too the increase in manufacturing under Obama. Republicans are ruining the country. That is pretty much obvious. We definitely do not need them in charge of anything anymore.

 

[calamity]

Re: Here's how badly Democrats have to screw up to lose the election

Great charts, so what? Tell me any rich person prevented you from getting a bigger piece of the pie? Why aren't their any buggy whip manufacturers today. Economies are always changing.

Manufacturing jobs increase with a Democratic president and fall off rapidly during Republican administrations. Tell me again why anyone should vote R?

 

[disneydude]

What data, the doubling of GDP, the 17 million jobs created, the 49 states Reagan won, the peace dividend, and a debt that topped out at 52% of GDP? Sorry you weren't successful under Reagan but in reality most here can see why. Placing blame but never offering solutions is what liberals like you always do

I was in college during Reagan and working a waiter job to support myself at the time....so I wasn't really in a position to be "successful" under Reagan. I would say that I did fine at the time of Reagan...but we as a country are paying a huge price today as a result of the policies that started under Reagan.

 

[calamity]

Pretty simple Reagan took an economy that was in a double dip recession and took employment from 99 million to 116 million and doubled GDP adding 1.7 trillion to the debt

Obama took an economy in a bad recession with 142 million working Americans and today that is 149 million and has added 7.6 trillion to the debt.

Don't care about your links or your reports only BLS, BEA, and Treasury data.

Reagan's "miracle" was smoke and mirrors. If it was real, we would not have seen a decline in manufacturing jobs since 1979. You understand that. Right?

 

[Conservative]

Do tell then... go to the numbers at my link and tell me what I'm supposed to see that I don't. Give me the insight on your xray vision that sees through BLS numbers and comes up with your BS interpretation. I posted the numbers. They refute you and your reagan-worshipping. You have been exposed for all to see.

BLS actual charts

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over


Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438(1) 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139267(1) 139400 139649 139610 139639 139392 139520 139940 140156 140336 140780 140890
2012 141633(1) 141911 142069 141953 142231 142400 142270 142277 142953 143350 143279 143280
2013 143328(1) 143429 143374 143665 143890 144025 144275 144288 144297 143453 144490 144671
2014 145206(1) 145301 145796 145724 145868 146247 146401 146451 146607 147260 147331 147442
2015 148201(1) 148297 148331 148523 148795 148739 148840 149036 148800 149120 149364

 

[poweRob]

Reagan's "miracle" was smoke and mirrors. If it was real, we would not have seen a decline in manufacturing jobs since 1979. You understand that. Right?

And on a side note... how you like that steady manufacturing jobs increase since 2010?

 

[Conservative]

Reagan's "miracle" was smoke and mirrors. If it was real, we would not have seen a decline in manufacturing jobs since 1979. You understand that. Right?

BLS data, BEA data, and Treasury data disagree with you. Sorry you didn't benefit from the Reagan economy, the country did

 

[calamity]

I was in college during Reagan and working a waiter job to support myself at the time....so I wasn't really in a position to be "successful" under Reagan. I would say that I did fine at the time of Reagan...but we as a country are paying a huge price today as a result of the policies that started under Reagan.

Proof is in the fact that we began to quit making stuff under Reagan. The fall off is really evident under Bush II. THe US went from being a world leader in manufacturing to a financial money-changer economy--to quote someone I heard a few years ago: We no longer make **** here, we just dip our hands in the next guy's pocket.

 

[Conservative]

I was in college during Reagan and working a waiter job to support myself at the time....so I wasn't really in a position to be "successful" under Reagan. I would say that I did fine at the time of Reagan...but we as a country are paying a huge price today as a result of the policies that started under Reagan.

Amazing how can that be since you are such an expert on the Reagan economy, LOL. We are paying a much bigger price for the cost of liberalism and all that social engineering along with the 7.6 trillion Obama has added to the debt. What price are we paying for the Reagan economy?

 

[disneydude]

Well, again sorry you didn't benefit from the economy, you were in the minority

What you are failing to understand is that there are short-term and long-term effects. Certainly there were some short-term benefits to Reagan tax cuts...primarily the short term benefit of jump-starting the economy. The long term effects however have been an utter disaster. The destruction of our manufacturing base occurred during the Reagan terms and because of that the working class and middle class will continue to struggle. High paying manufacturing jobs were out-sourced and very likely will not return. They have been replaced with much lower paying service industry jobs. The wealth from those jobs trickled up....not down....as the wealthy were able to pocket more money by paying third world workers lower salaries....and those salaries don't go back into our economy and no American workers are hired as a result. Only people such as yourself Con....can look at the remarkable disparity in income equality from 1980 to present and explain it as "The wealthy deciding in 1980 to work really really REALLY hard...and the working class deciding that they would just become lazy and quit working". If that's the best explanation you have....I'm not surprised.

 

[Conservative]

Proof is in the fact that we began to quit making stuff under Reagan. The fall off is really evident under Bush II. THe US went from being a world leader in manufacturing to a financial money-changer economy--to quote someone I heard a few years ago: We no longer make **** here, we just dip our hands in the next guy's pocket.

We no longer make **** here because unions have driven up costs and the global economy won't allow for those prices to support manufacturing.

 

[disneydude]

Amazing how can that be since you are such an expert on the Reagan economy, LOL. We are paying a much bigger price for the cost of liberalism and all that social engineering along with the 7.6 trillion Obama has added to the debt. What price are we paying for the Reagan economy?

Liberals haven't been in office since before the 1980's.....so I don't know how you can possibly blame it on liberal policies.

 

[poweRob]

BLS actual charts

Great... now put on your self touted xray data glasses and explain it to us seeing how you think us liberals cant see through the data to what you see.

 

[calamity]

BLS data, BEA data, and Treasury data disagree with you. Sorry you didn't benefit from the Reagan economy, the country did

Too bad you don't understand real value economy from smoke and mirrors. Why do you think manufacturing in the US peaked in 1979? Do you believe that is a good thing?

 

[disneydude]

We no longer make **** here because unions have driven up costs and the global economy won't allow for those prices to support manufacturing.

Wrong. It had nothing to do with unions. It had to do with deregulation and the outsourcing of jobs to third world countries so that corporations could pay third world wages. The manufacturing base was destroyed during the Reagan years...and Reagan did everything he could to destroy unions. Again....logic is not your strong suit.

 

[Conservative]

Liberals haven't been in office since before the 1980's.....so I don't know how you can possibly blame it on liberal policies.

SS and Medicare are trillions in debt because a liberal put those funds into the general fund. Clinton created the sub prime loans and the start of the bubble after Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act and then there is War on Poverty that has wasted trillions, and of course Obamacare that has to be paid for. yes, liberalism has to be funded and every dollar that goes to the federal govt. comes out of the pockets of the citizens of the state and that hurts state economies

 

[poweRob]

SS and Medicare are trillions in debt because a liberal put those funds into the general fund. Clinton created the sub prime loans and the start of the bubble after Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act and then there is War on Poverty that has wasted trillions, and of course Obamacare that has to be paid for. yes, liberalism has to be funded and every dollar that goes to the federal govt. comes out of the pockets of the citizens of the state and that hurts state economies

What did Carter's Community Reinvestment Act do to create the bubble again?


please say stopped redlining
please say stopped redlining
please say stopped redlining
please say stopped redlining
please say stopped redlining

 

[calamity]

We no longer make **** here because unions have driven up costs and the global economy won't allow for those prices to support manufacturing.

Unions have stifled innovation and driven up costs. Yes. But, that's not why all those jobs left the US. First off, where did the money come from to finance all those new manufacturing plants in places like China?

That's your trickle down--US money tricked down from our Wall Street to China's polluted manufacturing cities.

 

[Conservative]

Wrong. It had nothing to do with unions. It had to do with deregulation and the outsourcing of jobs to third world countries so that corporations could pay third world wages. The manufacturing base was destroyed during the Reagan years...and Reagan did everything he could to destroy unions. Again....logic is not your strong suit.

Of course not, companies just use the money tree in the back yard to fund union pensions and pay increases. Reagan did exactly what he was charged to do under the Constitution thus destroying the traffic controller unions. My work is done here, a waste of time. How many posts have I been reported to the Mods on?

 

[The Mark]

Name for me a successful socialist economy in terms of U.S. results?

Sanders isn't by any means a pure socialist.

He has more socialist-like ideas than most of the other candidates, but he's definitely not a pure socialist.
Its extremely unlikely that the US will end up with a socialist economy even if he gets elected twice....

 

[Conservative]

Sanders isn't by any means a pure socialist.

He has more socialist-like ideas than most of the other candidates, but he's definitely not a pure socialist.
Its extremely unlikely that the US will end up with a socialist economy even if he gets elected twice....

Then why would you support him?

 

[poweRob]

Then why would you support him?

Probably because the world isn't as all-or-none black and white as you think it is and Bernie isn't anything close to what you say he is.

 

[calamity]

Of course not, companies just use the money tree in the back yard to fund union pensions and pay increases. Reagan did exactly what he was charged to do under the Constitution thus destroying the traffic controller unions. My work is done here, a waste of time. How many posts have I been reported to the Mods on?

None, I hope. You may not have a clue about the difference between real value in an economy and Reagan's smoke and mirror Wall Street bubble crap, but you've debated in good faith, IMO.