PDA

View Full Version : Reagan vs Obama



satanica
07-06-2009, 07:00 AM
I am wondering something.

Reagan was handed a financial crisis, not as big as what Obama was handed, but never the less, Carter handed Reagan a screwed up economy. It took Reagan 2 years to turn the economy around, and the republicans were very happy with that.

Now we are ina a deeper financial mess, and the republicans are going ape shit because the economy hasn't turned around yet.

Just more hypocrisy. Can anybody explain this ?

http://www.speculativebubble.com/images/ronald-reagan-approval.gif

djones520
07-06-2009, 07:03 AM
Probably had something to do with Reagan not making the deficit grow like it is, and with Reagan promising tax cuts, not phenominal raises like Obama is trying to do.

You fail. Next question?

By the way, how is Waterboarding and Water Cure the same thing?

Constitutionally Speaking
07-06-2009, 07:46 AM
Satanica, Where do you get your misinformation???


Lets LOOK at what Reagan was handed and what Obama inherited!!!

Economic Growth:

1980 NEGATIVE .2%

2008 POSITIVE 1.1%



Real Wages


Feb 1981 $8.10/hr

Feb 2009 $8.61/hr




Inflation:

Feb 1981 11.41%

Feb 2009 .24%


Interest Rates - 30 year mortgage:


1980: 15%

2009: 5.77



You REALLY should do a bit of research before you open your pie-hole.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-06-2009, 07:52 AM
Leave it to Supercrash to use a chart showing approval ratings to make an argument on how long it took to turn the economy around.


You DID know your graph has nothing to do with your text, RIGHT????



(snicker, snicker) - Oh hell -


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a tool!

Texas Terrier
07-06-2009, 08:21 AM
I am wondering something.

Reagan was handed a financial crisis, not as big as what Obama was handed, but never the less, Carter handed Reagan a screwed up economy. It took Reagan 2 years to turn the economy around, and the republicans were very happy with that.

Now we are ina a deeper financial mess, and the republicans are going ape shit because the economy hasn't turned around yet.

Just more hypocrisy. Can anybody explain this ?

http://www.speculativebubble.com/images/ronald-reagan-approval.gif

Just proves we're really heading to hell in a handbasket.

Reagan cut taxes, the country recovered from the mess Carter put us in.

Obama did come in during a recession...no question, but he's gonna raise taxes. That's about as smart as sticking your finger in a light socket.

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 09:27 AM
I am wondering something.

Reagan was handed a financial crisis, not as big as what Obama was handed, but never the less, Carter handed Reagan a screwed up economy. It took Reagan 2 years to turn the economy around, and the republicans were very happy with that.

Now we are ina a deeper financial mess, and the republicans are going ape shit because the economy hasn't turned around yet.

Just more hypocrisy. Can anybody explain this ?

http://www.speculativebubble.com/images/ronald-reagan-approval.gif

Sure

Your assumption is that it was simply "Reagan's" policies that turned the economy around. Do you know what a business cycle is (http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/a1abc.htm)

Why is it that socialists talk so much about economics but are so ignorant of the discipline?

Your seem quite narrow. Guess half a century of Keynesianism has been too much for you. Why don't you quit boning up on all that collectivist garbage and study some people who know a little bit about what the systemic problems are. In other words... why not celebrate diversity?

ralph wiggum
07-06-2009, 09:34 AM
Now we are ina a deeper financial mess, and the republicans are going ape shit because the economy hasn't turned around yet.

Just more hypocrisy. Can anybody explain this ?

Who is going "ape-shit"? There is a major disagreement on how to stimulate the economy and the methods that the Obama administration are using. I thought dissent was patriotic, isn't that what we were told for the eight years of the Bush presidency?

satanica
07-06-2009, 10:29 AM
Probably had something to do with Reagan not making the deficit grow like it is, and with Reagan promising tax cuts, not phenominal raises like Obama is trying to do.

You fail. Next question?

By the way, how is Waterboarding and Water Cure the same thing?

LOL.

Reagan exploided the deficit as soon as he came to power, And ...Reagan also gave the nation THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY IN 1982

When you say Reagan "promised tax cuts" ...you mean he gave the USA the largest tax increase in our history.

When you say he was "not making the deficit grow" ...you mean he exploded the deficit like no other President before him.

How stupid are you ? ...these are facts of history, not an opinion.

satanica
07-06-2009, 10:32 AM
Just proves we're really heading to hell in a handbasket.

Reagan cut taxes, the country recovered from the mess Carter put us in.

Obama did come in during a recession...no question, but he's gonna raise taxes. That's about as smart as sticking your finger in a light socket.

He gave the nation the largest tax increase in our history.

Obama gave the nation the largest tax cut in our nations history.

These are facts you idiots.

djones520
07-06-2009, 10:36 AM
He gave the nation the largest tax increase in our history.

Obama gave the nation the largest tax cut in our nations history.

These are facts you idiots.

Right... you keep spewing that false talking point. He gave me an $82 a year tax cut for 2 years. You going to keep spewing that point in 2011 when that tax "cut" no longer exists?

satanica
07-06-2009, 10:45 AM
Right... you keep spewing that false talking point. He gave me an $82 a year tax cut for 2 years. You going to keep spewing that point in 2011 when that tax "cut" no longer exists?


Lets play a game, the game is called, back up your claims with links, and quotes posted from the links.

You NEVER EVER play this game so I will show you how to play...

Firs off I will back up the claim about tax INCREASES

In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before. http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html

Reagan deficit claim backed up...

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


Your turn idiot. .....I predict you don't back up any of the BS you are posting........again.

Texas Terrier
07-06-2009, 10:46 AM
He gave the nation the largest tax increase in our history.

Obama gave the nation the largest tax cut in our nations history.

These are facts you idiots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/06/16/ny-times-finds-new-way-insult-ronald-reagan-big-spender

satanica
07-06-2009, 10:47 AM
Obama largest tax cut in history...

Here is a little fun fact that is really bad news for Republicans hoping to run against Barack Obama and the stimulus package in 2010 and beyond. The Obama tax cut is $282 billion which is larger than the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan, JFK, and George W. Bush. Even worse, Republicans voted against it.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Tax-Cut

Lars1701a
07-06-2009, 10:49 AM
Obama largest tax cut in history...

Here is a little fun fact that is really bad news for Republicans hoping to run against Barack Obama and the stimulus package in 2010 and beyond. The Obama tax cut is $282 billion which is larger than the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan, JFK, and George W. Bush. Even worse, Republicans voted against it.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Tax-Cut

Dont worry when the cap and trade bill comes into being his tax cut will be small fish compaired to the raise in energy costs.

satanica
07-06-2009, 10:49 AM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/06/16/ny-times-finds-new-way-insult-ronald-reagan-big-spender

Dude, you link proved my point, thanks.

"The federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it had been in 1981," Richard Gamble wrote last month in American Conservative magazine. "Reagan's tax cuts, whatever their merits as short-term fiscal policy, left large and growing budget deficits when combined with increased spending, and added to the national debt."
To be sure, Mr. Reagan's failure to curb the cost of government reflected the enduring difficulty all presidents face in balancing the government services Americans want with the taxes they're willing to pay. But today it seems, increasingly, that it was Mr. Reagan and his admirer, George W. Bush, who contributed most to the problem of runaway spending, at least among recent presidents.

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 10:52 AM
Dont worry when the cap and trade bill comes into being his tax cut will be small fish compaired to the raise in energy costs.

Yes. It's called an inflation tax and Satan's boy doesn't understand how that hurts all working class Americans.

I thought Obama was working to help them?

FAIL

Lars1701a
07-06-2009, 10:53 AM
Dude, you link proved my point, thanks.

"The federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it had been in 1981," Richard Gamble wrote last month in American Conservative magazine. "Reagan's tax cuts, whatever their merits as short-term fiscal policy, left large and growing budget deficits when combined with increased spending, and added to the national debt."
To be sure, Mr. Reagan's failure to curb the cost of government reflected the enduring difficulty all presidents face in balancing the government services Americans want with the taxes they're willing to pay. But today it seems, increasingly, that it was Mr. Reagan and his admirer, George W. Bush, who contributed most to the problem of runaway spending, at least among recent presidents.


What party controlled the congress durning his two terms?

satanica
07-06-2009, 10:56 AM
What party controlled the congress durning his two terms?

So, you are saying it is the fault of the Dems ?

satanica
07-06-2009, 10:58 AM
Yes. It's called an inflation tax and Satan's boy doesn't understand how that hurts all working class Americans.

I thought Obama was working to help them?

FAIL


The repubs always claim the DEm policies will hurt the nation...turns out the exact opposite happens, your cred is history, we were told by the GOP that Clintons deficit reduction plan would destroy the nation, instead it brought us record back to back surpluses.

YupItsMe
07-06-2009, 11:04 AM
So, you are saying it is the fault of the Dems ?



Yes. Tax Revenues increased under Reagan. Dem controlled Congress just spent even more. You can blame miltary spending on Reagan, but it broke the backs of the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. I'll take deficit spending if it can accomplish that.

satanica
07-06-2009, 11:06 AM
Yes. Tax Revenues increased under Reagan. Dem controlled Congress just spent even more. You can blame miltary spending on Reagan, but it broke the backs of the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. I'll take deficit spending if it can accomplish that.

So, you are telling me that it was the fault of the Dems ? ...they forced Reagan/Bush to do what they wanted ?

Texas Terrier
07-06-2009, 11:11 AM
Dude, you link proved my point, thanks.

"The federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it had been in 1981," Richard Gamble wrote last month in American Conservative magazine. "Reagan's tax cuts, whatever their merits as short-term fiscal policy, left large and growing budget deficits when combined with increased spending, and added to the national debt."
To be sure, Mr. Reagan's failure to curb the cost of government reflected the enduring difficulty all presidents face in balancing the government services Americans want with the taxes they're willing to pay. But today it seems, increasingly, that it was Mr. Reagan and his admirer, George W. Bush, who contributed most to the problem of runaway spending, at least among recent presidents.

Think you left out what they said right before the part you quoted...here's the full paragraph.

Harwood saved his most audacious line for near the end. After years of NYT caricatures of Reagan as a heartless budget cutter, Harwood suggested Reagan and George W. Bush were to blame for..."runaway spending.

Perhaps most important, the principal early line of attack Republicans have offered against Mr. Obama, that he is a profligate spender who will run up massive deficits, is also the area where the Reagan Revolution looks most vulnerable today, as critics on the right have pointed out. "The federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it had been in 1981," Richard Gamble wrote last month in American Conservative magazine. "Reagan's tax cuts, whatever their merits as short-term fiscal policy, left large and growing budget deficits when combined with increased spending, and added to the national debt."

satanica
07-06-2009, 11:17 AM
Think you left out what they said right before the part you quoted...here's the full paragraph.

"Harwood saved his most audacious line for near the end. After years of NYT caricatures of Reagan as a heartless budget cutter, Harwood suggested Reagan and George W. Bush were to blame for..."runaway spending."

Perhaps most important, the principal early line of attack Republicans have offered against Mr. Obama, that he is a profligate spender who will run up massive deficits, is also the area where the Reagan Revolution looks most vulnerable today, as critics on the right have pointed out. "The federal payroll was larger in 1989 than it had been in 1981," Richard Gamble wrote last month in American Conservative magazine. "Reagan's tax cuts, whatever their merits as short-term fiscal policy, left large and growing budget deficits when combined with increased spending, and added to the national debt."

Why would you want to trash Reagan ? ...what you posted makes him look worse.

Republicans can't attack Obama for spending, Bush spent for years for no reason, Obama is trying to fix a ruined nation.

And ...Bush cancelled Paygo ....Obama restored paygo


You tell me who is trying to controll spending ? ...Bush cancelled Paygo when he was handed the largest surplus in history ...Obama retored Paygo when handed the largest deficit in history.

YupItsMe
07-06-2009, 11:18 AM
So, you are telling me that it was the fault of the Dems ? ...they forced Reagan/Bush to do what they wanted ?


It's called a representative democracy. As much as you wish we had a dictator right now, we don't and never have. Congress writes the laws, President siigns them. Reagan begged for Line Item Veto the whole eight years he was President, but Congress wouldn't allow it. Without line item veto you either shut down the whole country or pass the pork-laden crap that Congress writes. You wouldn't remember this because you weren't even the mess between your mothers legs yet.

BadCat
07-06-2009, 11:21 AM
There is no Obumble "tax cut".

All they did is change the Federal Withholding. Your paycheck gets enough extra to buy a pack of Obumble taxed cigarettes.

You're just going to owe more next April.

Texas Terrier
07-06-2009, 11:36 AM
Why would you want to trash Reagan ? ...what you posted makes him look worse.

Republicans can't attack Obama for spending, Bush spent for years for no reason, Obama is trying to fix a ruined nation.

And ...Bush cancelled Paygo ....Obama restored paygo


You tell me who is trying to controll spending ? ...Bush cancelled Paygo when he was handed the largest surplus in history ...Obama retored Paygo when handed the largest deficit in history.

from the comments on the article Link (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/06/16/ny-times-finds-new-way-insult-ronald-reagan-big-spender#comments)


Harwood the DOPE!
June 16, 2009 - 17:28 ET by blazermaniac

He doesn't actually think that anyone would buy his nonsense. Harwood must have forgotton the biggest spender in US Presidential history. You know, the talker that is ruining the country now!

Time to stop drinking the Kook-aide and come back to reality.

satanica
07-06-2009, 11:40 AM
It's called a representative democracy. As much as you wish we had a dictator right now, we don't and never have. Congress writes the laws, President siigns them. Reagan begged for Line Item Veto the whole eight years he was President, but Congress wouldn't allow it. Without line item veto you either shut down the whole country or pass the pork-laden crap that Congress writes. You wouldn't remember this because you weren't even the mess between your mothers legs yet.

LOL. The prez has a choice.

Sign the bill or shut the country down ? ...implying no prez has ever sent a bill back without shutting the country down.

Reagan signed tax INCREASES every single year he was in office(except for the first year) ...these tax increases were not veto proof, he didn't have to sign them....but he did. in fact he requested these increases.

djones520
07-06-2009, 11:44 AM
LOL. The prez has a choice.

Sign the bill or shut the country down ? ...implying no prez has ever sent a bill back without shutting the country down.

Reagan signed tax INCREASES every single year he was in office(except for the first year) ...these tax increases were not veto proof, he didn't have to sign them....but he did. in fact he requested these increases.

Links please?

satanica
07-06-2009, 12:19 PM
Links please?

The bills were not veto proof. Reagan could have shelved these bills, he didn't.

djones520
07-06-2009, 12:37 PM
The bills were not veto proof. Reagan could have shelved these bills, he didn't.

So how is that proof that Reagan requested the tax raises?

satanica
07-06-2009, 12:58 PM
So how is that proof that Reagan requested the tax raises?

He didn't veto them, year after year after year.

Reagan knew that taxes needed to be raised, he was spending out of control, between Reagan/Bush they quadrupled the national debt.

It had to be payed back, Reagan knew this.

Lager
07-06-2009, 01:00 PM
Which taxes did Reagan raise?

satanica
07-06-2009, 01:04 PM
Which taxes did Reagan raise?

It was only the largest tax increase in history. It was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

Get informed buddy, this is written history. Reagan raised taxes every year (except his first) of his terms.

djones520
07-06-2009, 01:06 PM
Let me help you out here Supercrash.

Reagan agreed to the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, on the condition that Congress reduced spending my $3 for every $1 they increased taxes. At the time TEFRA was the largest peacetime tax "increase" in history, but when you figure the 37.5 billion in taxes it was supposed to generate, Congress was supposed to spend more then $100 billion less per year. It in effect repealed about 1/3 of the 1981 tax cut. So in all technicallity it wasn't a tax increase, just a softening of the tax cuts.

At the end of Reagans terms, the citizens of the United States where paying about 1% less of the GDP in taxes then they where when he took office.

So lets take a look at what we could possibly be spending with Obama?

Roughly $300 billion in tax cuts. It's highly doubtful that all that money will be spent, since the large majority of it comes from things like tax breaks for buying new houses (and we all know how weak the market is right now).

Any anyrate, we need to subtract 33 billion from that for SCHIP. First tax increase of many we face, is nearly as much as the Reagan increase. Estimates of tax increases brought about by the Cap and Trade bill are... wait for it... $645.7 billion dollars.

More then doubles the tax cuts he "gave" us. Then lets look at this Healthcare plan. The most conservative estimate I've heard is another $600 billion. So we're looking at over a trillion dollars now Supercrash.

I also heard today that Democrats where calling for a 2nd Stimulus bill... I don't even want to think about that one.

Lager
07-06-2009, 01:10 PM
So that would be the act that rescinded some of the cuts that were made in 1981 for the economic recovery act. So if you cut taxes drastically in the first year and then the next year back off on some of those cuts, that counts as the biggest tax increase ever. Yeah, I can see that.

satanica
07-06-2009, 01:10 PM
So lets take a look at what we could possibly be spending with Obama?

And this is where you fail, the very same place you failed under Clinton.

A Democrat gets elected, the repubs claim the Presidents policies will ruin the nation, the exact opposite happens.

Clinton was handed the largest deficit in history, by a republican president , the repubs claimed Clintons policies would ruin the nation, the exact opposite happened.

Now Obama is handed the largest deficit in history, by another republican president ...and is hearing the same thing, Obama's policies will ruin the nation.

As if you hacks have any credibility left.

How did your last prediction turn out ?

djones520
07-06-2009, 01:13 PM
And this is where you fail, the very same place you failed under Clinton.

A Democrat gets elected, the repubs claim the Presidents policies will ruin the nation, the exact opposite happens.

Clinton was handed the largest deficit in history, the repubs claimed Clintons policies would ruin the nation, the exact opposite happened.

Now Obama is hearing the same thing, Obama's policies will ruin the nation.

As if you hacks have any credibility left.

How did your last prediction turn out ?

Clinton kept the deficit pretty steady over 8 years. Obama has more then tripled it in his first 6 months and he has no plans on slowing down on his spending.

There is no comparison. Period.

As for my prediction? I was 8 when Clinton was elected asshat.

Lager
07-06-2009, 01:16 PM
So, so far, how do you think he's doing? Tell me in your own words, without cut and pasting from your favorite lefty sites, how you think his economic policies are going to provide benefit? I will admit it's still too early to judge, but surely you have to like the direction he's going in, don't you? So please, in your own words, tell us why.

satanica
07-06-2009, 01:53 PM
Clinton kept the deficit pretty steady over 8 years. Obama has more then tripled it in his first 6 months and he has no plans on slowing down on his spending.

There is no comparison. Period.

As for my prediction? I was 8 when Clinton was elected asshat.


OMG, ...WTF ?

Bush was handed a record surplus, and in the first year he created a deficit over 200 billion.

There is no comparison. Period

Oh really ?

Bush was handed the best economy our nation had ever seen, and STILL created a record deficit within one year.

Obama was handed a terrible economy and the largest deficit our nation had ever seen ...the spending is justified. Bushs wasn't.

As for my prediction? I was 8 when Clinton was elected asshat

Well now you know you are repeating history, the GOP went down this path already, it's the main reason why they don't have any credibility left. People who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it ...and look pretty foolish doing so.

djones520
07-06-2009, 02:00 PM
OMG, ...WTF ?

Bush was handed a record surplus, and in the first year he created a deficit over 200 billion.

There is no comparison. Period

Oh really ?

Bush was handed the best economy our nation had ever seen, and STILL created a record deficit within one year.

Obama was handed a terrible economy and the largest deficit our nation had ever seen ...the spending is justified. Bushs wasn't.

As for my prediction? I was 8 when Clinton was elected asshat

Well now you know you are repeating history, the GOP went down this path already, it's the main reason why they don't have any credibility left. People who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it ...and look pretty foolish doing so.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing Bush into this, like it justifies Obama's spending. By your reasoning, Bush didn't create enough of a deficit. Because Obama is certainly trying his damned hardest to break 2 trillion by the time the year closes out.

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 02:08 PM
I'm not sure why you keep bringing Bush into this, like it justifies Obama's spending. By your reasoning, Bush didn't create enough of a deficit. Because Obama is certainly trying his damned hardest to break 2 trillion by the time the year closes out.

He also likes to believe that Clinton left office with a surplus. That's been debunked over and over. This link: The Myth of the Clinton Surplus (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16) is probably the best overall site I've found with showing how it's all a facade.

and the follow up link : The myth of the Clinton surplus part II (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30)

satanica
07-06-2009, 02:13 PM
He also likes to believe that Clinton left office with a surplus. That's been debunked over and over. This link: The Myth of the Clinton Surplus (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16) is probably the best overall site I've found with showing how it's all a facade.

and the follow up link : The myth of the Clinton surplus part II (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30)

Please educate yourself about the difference between the national debt and the fiscal surplus/deficit.

Clinton had a surplus in the fiscal year , you just posted links to the onrunning national debt.

Every republican politician in office at the time agreed there was a surplus, and the debates of how to spend that money were pretty heated and DOCUMENTED ...I suggest you go inform yourself on the debate that took place in congress at the time.

But if you are just lazy and want to destroy my view that there was a surplus, then I suggest you post a quote from just one repub politician that was in congress at the time that claimes the surplus was a fraud, I would accept that.

Waiting ...

satanica
07-06-2009, 02:16 PM
I post links from CNN ... http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus

You post links from some unknown idiot named Craig Stiener

Checkmate.

Lager
07-06-2009, 02:18 PM
I'll ask you again to show some ability to think on your own, instead of jumping back and forth among your rabid lib websites, or practicing your google skills. Tell me how Obama's economic policies are going to lead us out of this. Maybe once you explain it, I will feel more confident and then go out and buy something.

How much of the bail out was spent so far? How much of the stimulus? How is government spending on green energy more efficient than the private sector? I've already owned stock in a few different solar companies. If we've already lost more jobs than he and Joe anticipated, does that mean that the couple of million jobs he said he would create are just going to be a wash?

satanica
07-06-2009, 02:21 PM
I'll ask you again to show some ability to think on your own, instead of jumping back and forth among your rabid lib websites, or practicing your google skills. Tell me how Obama's economic policies are going to lead us out of this. Maybe once you explain it, I will feel more confident and then go out and buy something.

How much of the bail out was spent so far? How much of the stimulus? How is government spending on green energy more efficient than the private sector? I've already owned stock in a few different solar companies. If we've already lost more jobs than he and Joe anticipated, does that mean that the couple of million jobs he said he would create are just going to be a wash?

No thanks. The President has laid this out many times, if you paid attention you would already know.

Lager
07-06-2009, 02:27 PM
I know he's laid it out. I just wanted to know what you thought. I don't agree with everything a republican president does, do you just fall in line because he's a democrat? Do you really understand what he's doing or are you just happy because he's not Bush?

satanica
07-06-2009, 02:34 PM
I know he's laid it out. I just wanted to know what you thought. I don't agree with everything a republican president does, do you just fall in line because he's a democrat? Do you really understand what he's doing or are you just happy because he's not Bush?

Republicans believe in the free market. Hoover just sat on his hands while the country collapsed, the free market fix never showed up.

What DID show up was FDR's stimulus, the nation turned around almost overnight.

Today, the republicans STILL want to sit on their hands and wait for the free market to fix everything.....and again, the free market fix never showed up

What DID show up was Obamas stimulus, it is still very very early to tell much, but what we do know is that when a economy recovers it is the stock market that is the leading indicator. Obama took office when the DOW was in freefall, it was about 8200.00 when he took office...not only did it stop falling, it reversed to where it was before he came to office.

Jobs are usually a lagging indicator in a recovering economy, recovering on the back end, instead of the front end like the DOW.

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 02:35 PM
Please educate yourself about the difference between the national debt and the fiscal surplus/deficit.

Clinton had a surplus in the fiscal year , you just posted links to the onrunning national debt.

Every republican politician in office at the time agreed there was a surplus, and the debates of how to spend that money were pretty heated and DOCUMENTED ...I suggest you go inform yourself on the debate that took place in congress at the time.

But if you are just lazy and want to destroy my view that there was a surplus, then I suggest you post a quote from just one repub politician that was in congress at the time that claimes the surplus was a fraud, I would accept that.

Waiting ...


Look at that chart at the site again bubba. the last column gives the Deficit numbers. Still no surplus.

$281.26 billion
$281.23 billion
$250.83 billion
$188.34 billion
$113.05 billion
$130.08 billion
$17.91 billion
$133.29 billion


The closest was 17 bill, but I guess thats chump change to you eh? The only time in this nation the budget was balanced was 1835 by President Jackson (http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/)

Explain to me how you can have a "surplus" when there's also a national debt of over $3 trillion?

Oh BTW. Clinton also tried to raide social security to do this, so I guess that makes him a hero in your mind huh?

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 02:42 PM
Republicans believe in the free market. Hoover just sat on his hands while the country collapsed, the free market fix never showed up.

What DID show up was FDR's stimulus, the nation turned around almost overnight.

Today, the republicans STILL want to sit on their hands and wait for the free market to fix everything.....and again, the free market fix never showed up

What DID show up was Obamas stimulus, it is still very very early to tell much, but what we do know is that when a economy recovers it is the stock market that is the leading indicator. Obama took office when the DOW was in freefall, it was about 8200.00 ...not only did it stop falling, it reversed to where it was before he came to office.

Jobs are usually a lagging indicator in a recovering economy, recovering on the back end, instead of the front end like the DOW.

It's like your a walking Liberal talking point billboard or something. There is so much wrong with what you say. :(

Hoover and FDR were a cut of the same cloth. He startee feeding all sorts of government intervention programs to fix the markets. A recipe for disaster.

HMMM.....FDR was elected in 1932, but the Great Depression didn't end until 1941...... sounds ,ike it was pretty effective to me.:rolleyes:

satanica
07-06-2009, 02:44 PM
HMMM.....FDR was elected in 1932, but the Great Depression didn't end until 1941...... sounds ,ike it was pretty effective to me

Thats called a depression.

Hoover was all about the free market. FDR brought the US the New Deal.

Yet you think they are the same ?

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 02:51 PM
HMMM.....FDR was elected in 1932, but the Great Depression didn't end until 1941...... sounds ,ike it was pretty effective to me

Thats called a depression.

Hoover was all about the free market. FDR brought the US the New Deal.

Yet you think they are the same ?


You said things changed overnight slick! Get a clue

Advice...why don't you read a book and educate yourself. Or spend 10 minutes watching the truth about Franklin Delano Stalin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Sw0EsI080

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 03:17 PM
Hoover was all about the free market. FDR brought the US the New Deal.

Yet you think they are the same ?

Oh really?

More disinformation from our friend.



We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs Hoover started". Rexford Tugwell, agricultural econoomist and a member of FDR's "Brain Trust" election team.

He established the Federal Farm board, a government agency that was supposed to improve the farming industry.

"
The grandiose buying organizations by which Hoover tried to maintain agriculture prices had the effect of demoralizing markets altogether." Lionel Robbins, British economist.

How about "Smoot Hawley". He voted for one of the biggest tax increases at the time. It was a tariff's tax that raised them to 59% on tens of thousands of goods.

Hoover meddled so much in the free markets that his demand that businesses keep wages high caused mass unemployment.
How about the Reconstruction Finance Corporation? It gave low interest loans to failing businesses.


Yeah..Hoover was a real do nothing free market guy.
You know so much that just isn't so.:rolleyes:

AlmostThere
07-06-2009, 03:28 PM
Don't take our word about BO being a loser. Take Russian's President, Dmitry Medvedev's word for it.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090706/capt.e45af7d6f5294e99b579c9e9758cc197.russia_us_ob ama_xmj108.jpg?x=400&y=269&q=85&sig=7mwZqV1eqyIASAjapMuD7Q--

Constitutionally Speaking
07-06-2009, 04:42 PM
LOL.

Reagan exploided the deficit as soon as he came to power,


I'm going to assume you meant exploded. Of course you realize that the vast majority of the increase in spending was for programs that the President CANNOT cut spending on - they have increases automatically built in - that is why it is called non-discretionary spending. Nearly all of these are Democrat programs.

Of the increase in programs where Reagan DID have a choice, nearly all of it was for the military. Remember this was a military that was in such bad disrepair that a vast number of our ships, tanks, helicopters etc were not even able to operate due to a lack of maintenance and parts because Jimmy Carter neglected to even provide enough money for spare parts!!!! This was a military in such disrepair that we could not even fly a couple of helicopters across the Saudi Desert when they were sent to rescue the hostages being held in Iran. The increases here were of necessity because the Democrat left things in such horrible shape.






And ...Reagan also gave the nation THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY IN 1982.


You do realize that the Social Security "tax" is not really a tax at all don't you???? You GET THAT MONEY BACK (provided the government doesn't default on it) You REALLY NEED TO BONE UP ON YOUR FACTS Supercrash!!!!


When you say Reagan "promised tax cuts" ...you mean he gave the USA the largest tax increase in our history.


See above - you don't know what the hell you are talking about.




When you say he was "not making the deficit grow" ...you mean he exploded the deficit like no other President before him.

How stupid are you ? ...these are facts of history, not an opinion

No they are not facts, see the explanations above.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-06-2009, 04:44 PM
Obama largest tax cut in history...

Here is a little fun fact that is really bad news for Republicans hoping to run against Barack Obama and the stimulus package in 2010 and beyond. The Obama tax cut is $282 billion which is larger than the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan, JFK, and George W. Bush. Even worse, Republicans voted against it.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Tax-Cut



How can you call it a tax cut when the recipients did not pay the tax in the first place???

It is called WELFARE.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-06-2009, 04:59 PM
It was only the largest tax increase in history. It was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

Get informed buddy, this is written history. Reagan raised taxes every year (except his first) of his terms.



Perhaps YOU should get informed. TEFRA was a HUGE TAX CUT!!!!!

Taking a provision or two from this bill that increases some things when the VAST majority of it and the net effect was not just a tax cut but a HUGE tax cut is more than dishonest. It is an intentional lie.


Why don't you TRY to be honest????

Constitutionally Speaking
07-06-2009, 05:01 PM
Guys, all you need to do to debunk this idiot is look at the facts on what he is posting.


He misrepresents and out right lies about every damn thing he posts.


This is yet another example.

Teetop
07-06-2009, 05:38 PM
Cap and Trade for DUmmies;

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m77/siggy_06/capandtradefordummies.jpg

The US economy is lurching towards crisis with long-term interest rates on course to double, crippling the country’s ability to pay its debts and potentially plunging it into another recession, according to a study by the US’s own central bank (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5754447/US-lurching-towards-debt-explosion-with-long-term-interest-rates-on-course-to-double.html) :eek:

In a 2003 paper, Thomas Laubach, the US Federal Reserve’s senior economist, calculated the impact on long-term interest rates of rising fiscal deficits and soaring national debt. Applying his assumptions to the recent spike in the US fiscal deficit and national debt, long-term interests rates will double from their current 3.5pc.

The impact would be devastating by making it punitively expensive to finance national borrowings and leading to what Tim Congdon, founder of Lombard Street Research, called a “debt explosion”. Mr Laubach’s study has implications for the UK, too, as public debt is soaring. A US crisis would have implications for the rest of the world, in any case.

Using historical examples for his paper, New Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt, Mr Laubach came to the conclusion that “a percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio raises the 10-year bond rate expected to prevail five years into the future by 20 to 40 basis points, a typical estimate is about 25 basis points”.

The US deficit has blown out from 3pc to 13.5pc in the past year but long-term rates are largely unchanged. Assuming Mr Laubach’s “typical estimate”, long-term rates have to climb 2.5 percentage points.

He added: “Similarly, a percentage point increase in the projected debt-to-GDP ratio raises future interest rates by about 4 to 5 basis points.” Economists are predicting a wide range of ratios but Mr Congdon said it was “not unreasonable” to assume debt doubling to 140pc. At that level, Mr Laubach’s calculations would see long-term rates rise by 3.5 percentage points.

The study is damning because Mr Laubach was the Fed’s economist at the time, going on to become its senior economist between 2005 and 2008, when he stepped down. As a result, the doubling in rates is the US central bank’s own prediction.

Mr Congdon said the study illustrated the “horrifying” consequences for leading western economies of bailing out their banks and attempting to stimulate markets by cutting taxes and boosting public spending. He said the markets had failed to digest fully the scale of fiscal largesse and said “current gilt yields [public debt] are extraordinary low given the size of deficits”.

Should the cost of raising or refinancing public debt in the markets double, “the debt could just explode”, he said, adding that it would come to a head in “five to 10 years”.

Japandroid
07-06-2009, 05:42 PM
You made a mistake going after Reagan. He is their "messiah".

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 05:47 PM
You made a mistake going after Reagan. He is their "messiah".

Speak for yourself. I know about Reagans shortcomings. His biggest legacy will be how he gave the keys to running deficits to others. The real test would be to try to convince a Liberal that Bush II was there type of guy though? Sure Cap and Trade and Obama's bailouts were nuts, but so was someone who said, I had to sacrifice the free market to save it and tread into the very same heresy. Socialist should be thanking Bush for all he did for them.

Japandroid
07-06-2009, 05:55 PM
And you are a little bit off on the "largest tax cut in history" part of your argument. The 1982 Tax Equity Bill was mostly just tax cuts from the '81 Economic Recovery bill being rescinded. Even after the 1982 Bill Reagan had still cut taxes by a large amount. Allow me to explain, the 1981 bill lowered taxes by 2% of the GDP (historically large tax cut) while the 1982 bill raised taxes by 1% of the GDP. Simply put, Reagan lowered taxes by about 1% of the GDP over his first two years in office.

However, Reagan never cut taxes by any meaningful amount other than his first year in office. Reagan was really just a tax (less) and spend (more) politician. The defecit spending we saw under both Bush's is probably his most lasting legacy.

BadCat
07-06-2009, 05:58 PM
The defecit spending we saw under both Bush's is probably his most lasting legacy.

Very true.
And it will look microscopic in comparison to what the hemorrhoid with ears is trying to spend.

Japandroid
07-06-2009, 05:58 PM
Speak for yourself. I know about Reagans shortcomings. His biggest legacy will be how he gave the keys to running deficits to others. The real test would be to try to convince a Liberal that Bush II was there type of guy though? Sure Cap and Trade and Obama's bailouts were nuts, but so was someone who said, I had to sacrifice the free market to save it and tread into the very same heresy. Socialist should be thanking Bush for all he did for them.

Bush's early tax cuts were an irresponsible handling of Bill Clinton's large surplus, that's pretty much the only reason I really did not like GWB as President. His foreign policy was bad, but he wasn't really dealt a fair deck after 9/11. All GWB ever really wanted to do was modernize our defense and update the missile shield, I dont think he wanted to start a couple of unwinnable wars.

Japandroid
07-06-2009, 06:01 PM
Very true.
And it will look microscopic in comparison to what the hemorrhoid with ears is trying to spend.

As long as there are revenues to match the spending the effect will be overall positive. We'll see if by 2011 we see Obama surpluses, if we do then we all know he's doing it right. If not, well... were screwed because there's no way the current Republican field can possibly beat a figure like Obama (especially with the front runners dropping like flies over the past few weeks).

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 06:09 PM
Bush's early tax cuts were an irresponsible handling of Bill Clinton's large surplus, that's pretty much the only reason I really did not like GWB as President. His foreign policy was bad, but he wasn't really dealt a fair deck after 9/11. All GWB ever really wanted to do was modernize our defense and update the missile shield, I dont think he wanted to start a couple of unwinnable wars.

As to your last point....maybe so. I don't think he intended to get into two wars. I disagree with he wasn't dealt a fair deck. It happened, but when you don't think for yourself and have no knowledge of history, and then you start listening to left wing trotskyites who have no business in F.P.....you get burned. So that's Bush's baby. You are defined by how you handle big events.

As far as your first point. See the posts earlier. I don't have time to go back into the lie of the Clinton surplus.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=153511#post153511

Teetop
07-06-2009, 06:16 PM
http://spectator.org/assets/mc/cartoons/6.23.2009_Credit_Report.gif



BORROWING 'TIL THE NATION BREAKS? (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06172009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/borrowing_til_the_nation_breaks__174580.htm)

....

Under President Obama, the 2009 budget deficit is set to reach a staggering $1.8 trillion. It took President George W. Bush seven years to run up $1.8 trillion in debt.

And these deficits aren't merely a temporary result of the recession; the president's budget would run deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year for the next decade.

The national debt would double. In other words, Obama would run up as much government debt as every president in US history from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. Put simply, he'd dump $84,352 per household of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren over the next decade.

Obama and his supporters try to defend this debt with three arguments.

First, he asserts that he "inherited" his large deficit from Bush (despite his Senate votes in favor of nearly every policy that created the deficit). This argument could be plausible if Obama had tried to rein in -- or at least not worsen -- the deficit. But after "inheriting" a projected $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009, he decided this deficit was too small.

Based on the unproven notion that deficit spending can end recessions, Obama pushed through a massive "stimulus" spending bill whose very purpose was to bring the budget deficit to nearly $2 trillion. This suggests that even if he hadn't inherited a big deficit, he'd have created one.

Second, Obama claims he'll cut the deficit in half by 2013. So what? The deficit has quadrupled this year -- a 50 percent cut from that bloated level would still leave deficits twice as high as before the recession. By the president's own projections, deficits would rise back up over $1 trillion by 2018. The national debt would still double.

Finally, there's the "Bush did it too" defense: Why criticize President Obama's deficits when the debt started shooting up under President Bush? In fact, Bush received mountains of criticism for his deficit spending. Even supporters of Bush's outlays can complain -- just as someone driving 75 mph has every right to yell "maniac!" at the car that blows past him going 100.

In this case, George W. Bush ran $300 billion deficits while fighting a war; Obama is now promising us permanent $1 trillion deficits even after America returns to peace and prosperity.


http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u13/cmnoa/upload/42525711.pwned.jpg

Japandroid
07-06-2009, 06:21 PM
As to your last point....maybe so. I don't think he intended to get into two wars. I disagree with he wasn't dealt a fair deck. It happened, but when you don't think for yourself and have no knowledge of history, and then you start listening to left wing trotskyites who have no business in F.P.....you get burned. So that's Bush's baby. You are defined by how you handle big events.

As far as your first point. See the posts earlier. I don't have time to go back into the lie of the Clinton surplus.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=153511#post153511

9/11 was so unique though, I mean economic slumps occur and must be handled but there are at least schools of thought on how to handle them. FDR's dealing with Pearl Harbor was fairly cut-and-dry, he responded with a hostile act of war with the righteous fury of American industrial might. 9/11 was different, it had the power to completely wreck our country and there is no way to combat the root causes of future terrorist attacks. They just kind of happen. Bush opted for preemption and it failed, and rather miserably. You cant fault him for the bad intelligence, but you can place blame on him for the people he surrounded himself with. The Cheney's, the Rumsfeld's... that was his greatest undoing.

Clinton made a projected surplus, revenues were outweighing spending... lol you just cant erase the defecit Reagan built in a few years.

Teetop
07-06-2009, 06:28 PM
9/11 was so unique though, I mean economic slumps occur and must be handled but there are at least schools of thought on how to handle them. FDR's dealing with Pearl Harbor was fairly cut-and-dry, he responded with a hostile act of war with the righteous fury of American industrial might. 9/11 was different, it had the power to completely wreck our country and there is no way to combat the root causes of future terrorist attacks. They just kind of happen. Bush opted for preemption and it failed, and rather miserably. You cant fault him for the bad intelligence, but you can place blame on him for the people he surrounded himself with. The Cheney's, the Rumsfeld's... that was his greatest undoing.

Clinton made a projected surplus, revenues were outweighing spending... lol you just cant erase the defecit Reagan built in a few years.

At the current rate of Obama's spending, the American People won't be able to erase that for a century, or two....

Rockntractor
07-06-2009, 06:28 PM
you just cant erase the defecit Reagan built in a few years.
Thank God Reagan built the military back up or we would be erased. We push the car to the top of the hill and you guys ride it down. Hopefully the cycle will repeat!

Teetop
07-06-2009, 06:31 PM
Thank God Reagan built the military back up or we would be erased. We push the car to the top of the hill and you guys ride it down. Hopefully the cycle will repeat!

I was in the military when Reagan was in office. I got a 23% pay raise, thanks to him. I will always have great respect and admiration for him.

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 06:33 PM
Thank God Reagan built the military back up or we would be erased. We push the car to the top of the hill and you guys ride it down. Hopefully the cycle will repeat!

I can't wish that on anyone. Unfortunately it's the average person who gets burned when Liberals or stupid politicians like Bush make huge mistakes.

Japandroid
07-06-2009, 07:26 PM
At the current rate of Obama's spending, the American People won't be able to erase that for a century, or two....

To be honest, there is no realistic way we ever pay back all of our debts. You can attribute that directly to Ronald Reagan.

I'm not going to say Reagan was the worst president in American history, but he's up there.

Rockntractor
07-06-2009, 07:29 PM
To be honest, there is no realistic way we ever pay back all of our debts. You can attribute that directly to Ronald Reagan.

I'm not going to say Reagan was the worst president in American history, but he's up there.
I guess President obama quadrupling our debt doesn't count.

Japandroid
07-06-2009, 07:41 PM
I guess President obama quadrupling our debt doesn't count.

OK, what should he have done then?

BadCat
07-06-2009, 08:07 PM
OK, what should he have done then?

Resigned because the job was too much for him.

Rockntractor
07-06-2009, 08:09 PM
OK, what should he have done then?

Stopped spending ,cut back programs, cut off your welfare and put you to work.

Zathras
07-06-2009, 09:20 PM
As long as there are revenues to match the spending the effect will be overall positive. We'll see if by 2011 we see Obama surpluses, if we do then we all know he's doing it right. If not, well... were screwed because there's no way the current Republican field can possibly beat a figure like Obama (especially with the front runners dropping like flies over the past few weeks).

Why in the bloody hell do idiotic liberals like you think the government having a surplus is a good thing? If the government has more money than it needs that means the population of the US has been overtaxed!!!!!!

NJCardFan
07-06-2009, 09:25 PM
There is no Obumble "tax cut".

All they did is change the Federal Withholding. Your paycheck gets enough extra to buy a pack of Obumble taxed cigarettes.

You're just going to owe more next April.
I make $60K a year and my Obama tax cut amounted to $3 a week.

Rockntractor
07-06-2009, 09:32 PM
I make $60K a year and my Obama tax cut amounted to $3 a week.

It's not a tax cut. They are just calculating withholding differently. you will pay them at the end of the year.

BadCat
07-06-2009, 09:33 PM
It's not a tax cut. They are just calculating withholding differently. you will pay them at the end of the year.

Exactly.
I can hardly wait to see the moonbats next April, when their "tax" refund is WAAAY smaller.

They count on that refund to buy pot, ya know?

Teetop
07-06-2009, 10:27 PM
To be honest, there is no realistic way we ever pay back all of our debts. You can attribute that directly to Ronald Reagan.

I'm not going to say Reagan was the worst president in American history, but he's up there.

The United States has always had "debts". From George Washington until Obama. The difference being, Obama has ballooned the debts to unheard of heights.

If you're looking for the worst POTUS, look to F.D.R. or Jimmah Carter.

Rockntractor
07-06-2009, 10:31 PM
The United States has always had "debts". From George Washington until Obama. The difference being, Obama has ballooned the debts to unheard of heights.

If you're looking for the worst POTUS, look to F.D.R. or Jimmah Carter.
Now you did it!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Jimmy_Carter.gif?t=1246933867

Teetop
07-06-2009, 10:42 PM
Now you did it!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Jimmy_Carter.gif?t=1246933867

http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/photos/carter_bunny_1-thumb.jpg

:rolleyes:

He was such a puss, a rabbit was named killer! :D

Teetop
07-06-2009, 11:00 PM
:confused::confused::confused:

What happened to satan's anal wart?

Japandroid
07-07-2009, 01:16 AM
Stopped spending ,cut back programs, cut off your welfare and put you to work.

Stop spending?! Hahaha, that's a good one. Were in the middle of a recession and you say we close off the biggest pot of money in the history of the world? lol, please justify that remark.

Cut back programs. Like what programs? I think a good place to start would be those two wars we got going overseas, that would save us a pretty penny.

I've never had welfare and I work probably more than you do. Please.

Jfor
07-07-2009, 01:45 AM
Stop spending?! Hahaha, that's a good one. Were in the middle of a recession and you say we close off the biggest pot of money in the history of the world? lol, please justify that remark.

Cut back programs. Like what programs? I think a good place to start would be those two wars we got going overseas, that would save us a pretty penny.

I've never had welfare and I work probably more than you do. Please.

WTF are you smoking? The government cannot spend their way out of this and maintain any sense of a free market. You give the money back to the producers and quit giving to the non-producers. The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison to what the 0 wants to spend on nationalized healthcare. Cap and trade will cost this country even more money.

You are so far from a conservative.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-07-2009, 08:50 AM
And you are a little bit off on the "largest tax cut in history" part of your argument. The 1982 Tax Equity Bill was mostly just tax cuts from the '81 Economic Recovery bill being rescinded. Even after the 1982 Bill Reagan had still cut taxes by a large amount. Allow me to explain, the 1981 bill lowered taxes by 2% of the GDP (historically large tax cut) while the 1982 bill raised taxes by 1% of the GDP. Simply put, Reagan lowered taxes by about 1% of the GDP over his first two years in office.

However, Reagan never cut taxes by any meaningful amount other than his first year in office. Reagan was really just a tax (less) and spend (more) politician. The defecit spending we saw under both Bush's is probably his most lasting legacy.


They are not Reagan's Legacy. Reagan's deficits were due almost entirely to the neglect previous administrations had toward the military. Domestic spending under President Reagan was indeed reigned in. Domestic spending as a share of GDP actually fell from 15.3% to 12.9% during the Reagan years.

In other words, if the Democrats had not virtually destroyed the military under Carter, Reagan would not have had to fix it.


The build up of our defenses also DIRECTLY contributed to the "peace dividend" that later Presidents would enjoy (and ultimately squander).

Constitutionally Speaking
07-07-2009, 09:00 AM
Stop spending?! Hahaha, that's a good one. Were in the middle of a recession and you say we close off the biggest pot of money in the history of the world? lol, please justify that remark.

Cut back programs. Like what programs? I think a good place to start would be those two wars we got going overseas, that would save us a pretty penny.

I've never had welfare and I work probably more than you do. Please.


Cut back on what program????

All grants to eco-socialist groups.

All grants to "community organizing" groups

Eliminate the Dept of Education and other departments that actually divert funds from schools.

Eliminate the EPA - at least scale it back dramatically.

The list is quite long.

If you want a guide of what depts. to cut, look to the 10th Amendment in the Bill of rights in the U.S. constitution.

The Federal government needs to give those powers back to the states and to the local communities where they belong.

satanica
07-07-2009, 09:10 AM
They are not Reagan's Legacy. Reagan's deficits were due almost entirely to the neglect previous administrations had toward the military.

Lets look at the facts. In 1977 the military spending was at 286 billion. when Carter left office in 1981 it was at 317 billion. Do the math. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html


In other words, if the Democrats had not virtually destroyed the military under Carter, Reagan would not have had to fix it.

So Carter increased the military spending, and Reagan needed to add 2 trillion to the national debt to fix it ?

How can you say Carter "destroyed the military" when he increased funding ?

Reagan add 2 trillion to a national debt of 1 trillion....and you brag that he cut domestic spending ? ...where did all that money go if WE didn't get it ?

Constitutionally Speaking
07-07-2009, 11:36 AM
Lets look at the facts. In 1977 the military spending was at 286 billion. when Carter left office in 1981 it was at 317 billion. Do the math. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html



So Carter increased the military spending, and Reagan needed to add 2 trillion to the national debt to fix it ?

How can you say Carter "destroyed the military" when he increased funding ?




If a roof costs $10,000 to fix and you only provide $100, you are neglecting the roof and your neglect will destroy the roof.

It ain't that difficult moron.


He increased it too little and too late - and it was not just Carter it was years of neglect by Nixon and Ford also.


The fact of the matter is that when Reagan took over we had a SEVERE shortage of the most basic spare parts.


Read this report on readiness - it shows we had only enough supplies for 30 days of war with the Soviet Union.

30 DAYS!!!! - and the ammunition supply was $20 billion short of being able to do THAT!

here is an excerpt:



Most worrisome, however, is the ammunition shortage.
In 1980, the Services were short $20billion in ammunition just to meet a 30-day war reserve level.

For FY1984, the Reagan Administration is requesting $11.2 billion for ammunition, almost three
times the outlays of EY1981.

<snip>

Even with full funding of the Reagan
defense budgets, the United States will still fall short of wartime requirements by
21 percent in ammunition and 30 percent in missiles.

<snip>

The real shortage of ammunition may be even greater. Assump-
tions,about weapons effectiveness tend to be optimistic; this is
especially true of guided missiles and llsmartll munitions. Vulner-
abilities of the logistics and support infrastructure are often
ignored or downplayed. Historically, U.S. logistics and rear
area support systems have operated under almost total U.S. air
superiority with no fear of attack. In the future, the U.S. will
not enjoy this luxury."


http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:kZU5RDHkYUkJ:https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/9079/87200_1.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1+Military+readiness+1980&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Again Supercrash, you need to THINK - or do a bit of research before you expose your infinite stupidity.

djones520
07-07-2009, 11:39 AM
Shit Constitutionally, the douche can't even be bothered to click on a link given to him. You don't truly expect him to do any real research do you?