- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And your post is yet another example of conservative cognitive dissonance: if the data do not fit conservative dogma, the data must be false. Same thing goes for anthropomorphic global warming, gun violence, basic economics, education, and family values: if the liberals agree with the hard-and-fast numbers, then the numbers must somehow be wrong.
*sigh*
Actually it was 13.6 million jobs and his tax cuts were as responsible for them as Clinton's tax increases were for the 19.6 million jobs that he created. There has never been any reliable evidence that tax cuts increase growth in the economy. There is plenty of data that shows they do reduce revenue though.
U.S. Job Creation by President / Political Party » truthful politics
And your post is yet another example of conservative cognitive dissonance: if the data do not fit conservative dogma, the data must be false. Same thing goes for anthropomorphic global warming, gun violence, basic economics, education, and family values: if the liberals agree with the hard-and-fast numbers, then the numbers must somehow be wrong.
*sigh*
Here we go again, do you have a short attention span. Obama took office with 142 million people employed, implemented a stimulus plan that then showed 139 million working Americans two years later. He was elected to return us to the times before the recession which were 146 million employed, today that is 149 million so please show me the 13.6 million?
It is very easy to take any point in time to generate the numbers you want but this President's numbers are a disaster for the amount of money spent and the debt created. Keep promoting failure
Please by all means, post data that refutes my posts?
You were saying that Reagan's tax cuts created 17 million jobs. I merely corrected your inflated number and pointed out that Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs. Obama took the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and turned it around in 2 years. He also has had the most sustained job growth in our history.
Like you, this thread is full of it.
Cannot admit when you are wrong, can you? Explain a peace dividend to us all?
Yes, what do you expect when attacked?
Who termed the term Great Recession? Interesting read that will be ignored by the Gruber Democrat
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/great-recession-a-brief-etymology/?_r=0
How do you know it was the worst recession in the country's history? You buy the headlines and ignore the data. The Great Recession was a term created by the media and the left knowing you and others like you(the Gruber electorate) would buy it. Problem is you cannot prove it nor can the left. 81-82 affected more Americans than this one and that makes it worse.
It precisely destroys your belief that we had a 2 trillion dollar budget thus when revenue exceeded 2 trillion that gave us a surplus. The budget of the United States is NOT 2 trillion dollars and public debt is only part of the national debt. That is something you have a problem understanding
Interesting chart that destroys your myth about previous Presidents, use the chart to map whatever years you want but notice the debt to GDP ratio prior to Reagan and now with Obama. Cannot help but notice how digitusmedius likes your post in attacking Reagan which must mean he has a problem with Obama's spending record as well.
United States Government Debt to GDP | 1940-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar
Have you ever seen anybody on a political debate forum concede such a thing. You certainly haven't. The point however is that the actor destroyed our creditor nation status and set the example for every president that has followed to do likewise, borrow and spend. He set a terribly irresponsible precedence for every president that followed and we'll never be below a trillion in debt again. That is your heroes legacy.
I expect that if we go to war we pay for it like we always have. It's not a liberal idea to pay for the wars. It's a responsible idea and conservatives (before Reagan came along and sold the rabble on the idea we could cut taxes, overspend and pay for everything at the same time) used to live by it. But these tea baggers seem to think we can get something for nothing. They're the biggest free-loaders this country has ever seen. They don't want government to touch their Medicare (which shows us how clueless they are) and they don't want to have to pay anything for it (which shows us how idiotic they are). Most three year olds are more responsible than these clowns.
Sidetracking again. You can run but you can't escape.
At least you've stopped making up crap and fudging data about deficits and debt. On to new set of fact destruction now it seems.
Yes, I have seen it done as I have done it in the past when proven wrong.
Your problem is you cannot see the big picture and there are a lot like you. The big picture is the peace dividend created by Reagan defense spending which caused the destruction of the Soviet Union and thus created an opportunity for future President's to not have to spend as much on Defense as he did.
You also ignore the benefits of creating 17 million jobs and doubling the economy which created for many less of a need from that so called govt. help. That should translate int0 less spending. So when you say he set an example for others to spend more just goes to show how little you know about return on investment
No, what you did was ignore BLS data as there were 99 million employed when Reagan took office and when he left it was 116 million. Then what you ignored is that Clinton had a Republican Congress that gave us business tax cuts in 1997 that actually created jobs. You have a very selective memory and I can beat you up all day with official data
Yes, and in two years he took employment from 142 million to 139 million, thank you Obama
Well, yes, I do have a problem understanding that gibberish. It reads like a delirium.
Yes, well that's what a massive recession like Bush's Great Republican Recession will do to an economy and the refusal of republicans to now raise taxes on the people who created that recession (and who are already richer than ever before) to repair the damage they caused. The republicans have succeeded in putting us on the path to being a third world country. SUCCESS!!! tea bagger version.
The BIG PICTURE IS THE BAD EXAMPLE AND PRECEDENCE HE SET FOR RUNAWAY DEBT!!!!!!!!! Thanks to his incompetence, we'll likely never see it below a trillion again.
That is your opinion, I am done with this argument as you are incapable of understanding what a peace dividend did to future defense spending and what the 17 million jobs and double the GDP did to allow for lower Federal spending as well.
Glen Contrarian;1064798215]And at the same time you refuse to realize that America's population is changing and growing older (and our birth rate is not high enough to replace those who are growing older), and the baby boomers such as myself are leaving the workplace and retiring. Not only that, but thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there's many who were ready to retire but had to work in order to have health insurance, but are now able to retire.
And it's not just here in America - it's happening in most of the first-world democracies, especially in Japan. It's not a matter of fewer people having jobs - it's a matter of demographics, of there being fewer people who want to work or who must work.
And when it comes to taxes, remember when Bush 41 said, "Read my lips, no new taxes"? After Bush 41 raised taxes, he lost the next election to Clinton...but the economy was already improving thanks to him raising taxes...and Clinton raised the top marginal rate even further. In other words, Bush had already done what was necessary to get the economy back on track and deserves more credit than Clinton for the mid-90's boom.
You've been corrected on both of those multiple times, you're wrong! And not only that, you think that your god damn PD was worth setting a trend of runaway national debt. You're wrong about that, too!
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?