|
Post by sportsnut on Sept 26, 2016 3:24:24 GMT
Im afraid Im not following your argument. You were knocking Reagan's economic philosophy and I pointed out his presidency's GDP numbers were vastly superior to the current state of the American GDP. Red herring much?
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Sept 26, 2016 3:34:41 GMT
Im afraid Im not following your argument. You were knocking Reagan's economic philosophy and I pointed out his presidency's GDP numbers were vastly superior to the current state of the American GDP. Red herring much? Now I'm no math wiz, but I see 3 Democrats at the top of list. With Clinton ahead of Reagan.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Sept 26, 2016 3:38:17 GMT
Hmm. How about job growth?
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Sept 26, 2016 3:40:27 GMT
How about inflation?
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Sept 26, 2016 11:21:28 GMT
Im afraid Im not following your argument. You were knocking Reagan's economic philosophy and I pointed out his presidency's GDP numbers were vastly superior to the current state of the American GDP. Red herring much? Now I'm no math wiz, but I see 3 Democrats at the top of list. With Clinton ahead of Reagan. You lefties, I tell ya... when you cant directly address the argument you change the subject. I'll slow down the discussion we were having BadHab... 1) It was suggested "supply-side" economic policies never have worked. I pointed to the fact that Reagan presided over the LONGEST period of economic growth at over 3.5%. 2) The economy was twice as good under his economic policies than the current administration. What would you like clarified? And if you want to post charts that herald Jimmy Carter as a beacon of your parties principles, then you really need help.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 26, 2016 12:14:04 GMT
Amazing that Carter had any growth with the inflation and the oil embargo.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 26, 2016 12:16:23 GMT
Im afraid Im not following your argument. You were knocking Reagan's economic philosophy and I pointed out his presidency's GDP numbers were vastly superior to the current state of the American GDP. Red herring much? Reagan had O'Neil to work with, Clinton had Gingrich to work with. The House and the Senate just suck right now.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 26, 2016 12:37:39 GMT
Im afraid Im not following your argument. You were knocking Reagan's economic philosophy and I pointed out his presidency's GDP numbers were vastly superior to the current state of the American GDP. Red herring much? Simple. Look at the flow charts and you will see that Reagan inherited a rather stable economy and early in his tenure pushed pure supply side, resulting in massive unemployment, unchecked inflation, and mild growth. He then (with the help of O'Neill) pulls back on his trickle down purity (raising taxes, increased spending) and voila...recessions recede. Now for Obama. As you can see, he inherits a clusterfuckingly ruined economy and it takes a few years to recover once his own policies start taking effect...hence his overall average numbers being skewed somewhat at a macro level. And he had no O'Neill to work with
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 15:03:29 GMT
Im afraid Im not following your argument. You were knocking Reagan's economic philosophy and I pointed out his presidency's GDP numbers were vastly superior to the current state of the American GDP. Red herring much? Simple. Look at the flow charts and you will see that Reagan inherited a rather stable economy and early in his tenure pushed pure supply side, resulting in massive unemployment, unchecked inflation, and mild growth. He then (with the help of O'Neill) pulls back on his trickle down purity (raising taxes, increased spending) and voila...recessions recede. Now for Obama. As you can see, he inherits a clusterfuckingly ruined economy and it takes a few years to recover once his own policies start taking effect...hence his overall average numbers being skewed somewhat at a macro level. And he had no O'Neill to work with So it was all just the Democrats? Wow, that makes my choice in November that much easier...partisanship forever!
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 26, 2016 15:16:27 GMT
Simple. Look at the flow charts and you will see that Reagan inherited a rather stable economy and early in his tenure pushed pure supply side, resulting in massive unemployment, unchecked inflation, and mild growth. He then (with the help of O'Neill) pulls back on his trickle down purity (raising taxes, increased spending) and voila...recessions recede. Now for Obama. As you can see, he inherits a clusterfuckingly ruined economy and it takes a few years to recover once his own policies start taking effect...hence his overall average numbers being skewed somewhat at a macro level. And he had no O'Neill to work with So it was all just the Democrats? Wow, that makes my choice in November that much easier...partisanship forever! Nobody is saying that. But there is a difference between idealism/ideology and reality. St. Ronnie was not a god and Obama is not the devil. The world is gray, not black or white....50 shades if it please you.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 26, 2016 16:31:12 GMT
Im afraid Im not following your argument. You were knocking Reagan's economic philosophy and I pointed out his presidency's GDP numbers were vastly superior to the current state of the American GDP. Red herring much? Reagan had O'Neil to work with, Clinton had Gingrich to work with. The House and the Senate just suck right now. This is true but your statement makes it sound like Reagan and Clinton were the beneficiary of Tip and Newt and they had nothing to do with the fact that the Executive Branch and Congress could play nice (relative term there). Yeah, I'll agree that this current group is less cooperative than what Ronnie and Bill had but both those guys were experienced politicians who knew how to build working relationships with the other side. They knew the value of compromise and were willing to take one in the nuts once in a while to help make progress on other matters. Obama had the same opportunity in the first couple years of his presidency but due to his lack of experience, lack of constructive relationships with republicans and the dems just unwilling to give an inch to an equally stubborn and unforgiving republican group just widened the divide. Cue the finger pointing and digging in of heels and the dems losing the senate and you get the do-nothing congress. Obama's legacy will include his failure to bridge the divide. Yeah, it was going to be very difficult to do but it was also a huge challenge for Reagan and Clinton. They managed to do it and Obama failed.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Sept 26, 2016 18:23:20 GMT
Im afraid Im not following your argument. You were knocking Reagan's economic philosophy and I pointed out his presidency's GDP numbers were vastly superior to the current state of the American GDP. Red herring much? Simple. Look at the flow charts and you will see that Reagan inherited a rather stable economy and early in his tenure pushed pure supply side, resulting in massive unemployment, unchecked inflation, and mild growth. He then (with the help of O'Neill) pulls back on his trickle down purity (raising taxes, increased spending) and voila...recessions recede. Now for Obama. As you can see, he inherits a clusterfuckingly ruined economy and it takes a few years to recover once his own policies start taking effect...hence his overall average numbers being skewed somewhat at a macro level. And he had no O'Neill to work with I will now only follow your hockey thoughts JM. Seriously, Reagan inherited a "rather stable economy" from Carter? LMAO Granted the economy was slowly coming out of a recession from the Ford presidency... but through the brilliant fiscal steps taken by Carter... 1) inflation went from 4.8% when he took office to....12% by the 1980 election. 2) production and consumption were dropping by 5% annually 3) jobs (adjusted for population growth) was virtually static. Whoops. And Obama only had Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat controlled Congress for two years... where have you gone Thomas O'Neill?
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 26, 2016 19:46:16 GMT
Reagan had O'Neil to work with, Clinton had Gingrich to work with. The House and the Senate just suck right now. This is true but your statement makes it sound like Reagan and Clinton were the beneficiary of Tip and Newt and they had nothing to do with the fact that the Executive Branch and Congress could play nice (relative term there). Yeah, I'll agree that this current group is less cooperative than what Ronnie and Bill had but both those guys were experienced politicians who knew how to build working relationships with the other side. They knew the value of compromise and were willing to take one in the nuts once in a while to help make progress on other matters. Obama had the same opportunity in the first couple years of his presidency but due to his lack of experience, lack of constructive relationships with republicans and the dems just unwilling to give an inch to an equally stubborn and unforgiving republican group just widened the divide. Cue the finger pointing and digging in of heels and the dems losing the senate and you get the do-nothing congress. Obama's legacy will include his failure to bridge the divide. Yeah, it was going to be very difficult to do but it was also a huge challenge for Reagan and Clinton. They managed to do it and Obama failed. Wrong Obama never had "Americans for Prosperity" caucus of Senators and Congressman, to deal with, put in by the Kochs. Boehner and Obama made two huge deals together. Boehner couldn't even control the freedom caucus. The both of them actually had a bigger deal, more cuts, with the 2013 Sequestrian but it was nixed. You are way off.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 26, 2016 20:30:46 GMT
This is true but your statement makes it sound like Reagan and Clinton were the beneficiary of Tip and Newt and they had nothing to do with the fact that the Executive Branch and Congress could play nice (relative term there). Yeah, I'll agree that this current group is less cooperative than what Ronnie and Bill had but both those guys were experienced politicians who knew how to build working relationships with the other side. They knew the value of compromise and were willing to take one in the nuts once in a while to help make progress on other matters. Obama had the same opportunity in the first couple years of his presidency but due to his lack of experience, lack of constructive relationships with republicans and the dems just unwilling to give an inch to an equally stubborn and unforgiving republican group just widened the divide. Cue the finger pointing and digging in of heels and the dems losing the senate and you get the do-nothing congress. Obama's legacy will include his failure to bridge the divide. Yeah, it was going to be very difficult to do but it was also a huge challenge for Reagan and Clinton. They managed to do it and Obama failed. Wrong Obama never had "Americans for Prosperity" caucus of Senators and Congressman, to deal with, put in by the Kochs. Boehner and Obama made two huge deals together. Boehner couldn't even control the freedom caucus. The both of them actually had a bigger deal, more cuts, with the 2013 Sequestrian but it was nixed. You are way off. Nope, I'm not. Gingrich and Tip could only get their parties so far. You're glossing over how much animosity and divide there was when Reagan came into office and how much of a dick Gingrich and some of the congress were back then. Remember that pack of assholes with their "Contract for America" or whatever that bullshit was? The Prez had to be able to convince the opposition to move off their arses and get things done. Getting the other party to work with you as the president isn't just the responsibility of the opposition's leadership. Obama tried to work with the other party only selectively early on because he had the house and the senate. Then when things weren't working he decided to make matters worse by using his pen. Obama fell short. Period. BTW...I'm not a republican so this isn't me pulling for my team, which is what I feel you are doing as a lefty socialist commie I'll be the first to tell you how badly W fucked up during his 2 terms.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Sept 26, 2016 20:40:59 GMT
Simple. Look at the flow charts and you will see that Reagan inherited a rather stable economy and early in his tenure pushed pure supply side, resulting in massive unemployment, unchecked inflation, and mild growth. He then (with the help of O'Neill) pulls back on his trickle down purity (raising taxes, increased spending) and voila...recessions recede. Now for Obama. As you can see, he inherits a clusterfuckingly ruined economy and it takes a few years to recover once his own policies start taking effect...hence his overall average numbers being skewed somewhat at a macro level. And he had no O'Neill to work with I will now only follow your hockey thoughts JM. Seriously, Reagan inherited a "rather stable economy" from Carter? LMAO Granted the economy was slowly coming out of a recession from the Ford presidency... but through the brilliant fiscal steps taken by Carter... 1) inflation went from 4.8% when he took office to....12% by the 1980 election. 2) production and consumption were dropping by 5% annually 3) jobs (adjusted for population growth) was virtually static. Whoops. And Obama only had Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat controlled Congress for two years... where have you gone Thomas O'Neill? Unfortunately you are ignoring the flow charts. Ronnie inherited Carter's inflationary and international crisis (thanks a lot Iran...you bastards!!) but the economy as a whole was, in fact, stable. Give Reagan a year and a half of unfettered supply side policy and the result was a massive recession, huge unemployment, and fiscal instability.....hence the deals with O'Neil to get things back on track. Do you remember the 2007-09 recession at all? An economy losing 850k jobs a month and a trillion dollar war sucking out expenditures. You honestly think that was a comparable scenario to Ronnie's stagflation issue? Yikes!! Things are not always a dichotomy. Right v wrong, Good v Evil. Supply side is no more the sole answer than Keynesian economics is by itself. The key is somewhere in between
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Sept 26, 2016 21:02:15 GMT
I will now only follow your hockey thoughts JM. Seriously, Reagan inherited a "rather stable economy" from Carter? LMAO Granted the economy was slowly coming out of a recession from the Ford presidency... but through the brilliant fiscal steps taken by Carter... 1) inflation went from 4.8% when he took office to....12% by the 1980 election. 2) production and consumption were dropping by 5% annually 3) jobs (adjusted for population growth) was virtually static. Whoops. And Obama only had Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat controlled Congress for two years... where have you gone Thomas O'Neill? Unfortunately you are ignoring the flow charts. Ronnie inherited Carter's inflationary and international crisis (thanks a lot Iran...you bastards!!) but the economy as a whole was, in fact, stable. Give Reagan a year and a half of unfettered supply side policy and the result was a massive recession, huge unemployment, and fiscal instability.....hence the deals with O'Neil to get things back on track. Do you remember the 2007-09 recession at all? An economy losing 850k jobs a month and a trillion dollar war sucking out expenditures. You honestly think that was a comparable scenario to Ronnie's stagflation issue? Yikes!! Things are not always a dichotomy. Right v wrong, Good v Evil. Supply side is no more the sole answer than Keynesian economics is by itself. The key is somewhere in betweenYou yourself said that there has never been an example where supply-side economics has worked, this was what originally drew my attention. Yet I'm the one needing a reminder about dichotomy? Anyone can objectively see Reagan's was not the best economic era of the United States, I've never said it was. In fact, Ive stated two things. Both are, by and large, not very revolutionary. Economically, Reagan's presidency had markedly better economic indicators than the present and Carters. Let's make this simple, Ive got my own chart. www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/daily-chart-13Stable or miserable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 22:35:02 GMT
Unfortunately you are ignoring the flow charts. Ronnie inherited Carter's inflationary and international crisis (thanks a lot Iran...you bastards!!) but the economy as a whole was, in fact, stable. Give Reagan a year and a half of unfettered supply side policy and the result was a massive recession, huge unemployment, and fiscal instability.....hence the deals with O'Neil to get things back on track. Do you remember the 2007-09 recession at all? An economy losing 850k jobs a month and a trillion dollar war sucking out expenditures. You honestly think that was a comparable scenario to Ronnie's stagflation issue? Yikes!! Things are not always a dichotomy. Right v wrong, Good v Evil. Supply side is no more the sole answer than Keynesian economics is by itself. The key is somewhere in betweenYou yourself said that there has never been an example where supply-side economics has worked, this was what originally drew my attention. Yet I'm the one needing a reminder about dichotomy? Anyone can objectively see Reagan's was not the best economic era of the United States, I've never said it was. In fact, Ive stated two things. Both are, by and large, not very revolutionary. Economically, Reagan's presidency had markedly better economic indicators than the present and Carters. Let's make this simple, Ive got my own chart. www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/daily-chart-13Stable or miserable? Dems trying to chip away at Reagan''s legacy reminds me of Republicans fighting Rowe v Wade after 45 years. A total lost cause for them. Reagan hit eight years of home runs for the GOP-and America-and any criticism's fall under the category of "nobody's perfect."
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 26, 2016 23:23:53 GMT
Wrong Obama never had "Americans for Prosperity" caucus of Senators and Congressman, to deal with, put in by the Kochs. Boehner and Obama made two huge deals together. Boehner couldn't even control the freedom caucus. The both of them actually had a bigger deal, more cuts, with the 2013 Sequestrian but it was nixed. You are way off. Obam tried to work with the other party only selectively early on because he had the house and the senate. Then when things weren't working he decided to make matters worse by using his pen. Obama fell short. Period. BTW...I'm not a republican so this isn't me pulling for my team, which is what I feel you are doing as a lefty socialist commie I'll be the first to tell you how badly W fucked up during his 2 terms.
Not a Democrat, not a lefty, a typical generalization. Lets make a mess and when the Democrats don't clean up fast enough "fuck'em". Obama felt short because Boehner couldn't stand up to the feedom caucus. Whatever you want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 26, 2016 23:45:05 GMT
Obam tried to work with the other party only selectively early on because he had the house and the senate. Then when things weren't working he decided to make matters worse by using his pen. Obama fell short. Period. BTW...I'm not a republican so this isn't me pulling for my team, which is what I feel you are doing as a lefty socialist commie I'll be the first to tell you how badly W fucked up during his 2 terms.
Not a Democrat, not a lefty, a typical generalization. Lets make a mess and when the Democrats don't clean up fast enough "fuck'em". Obama felt short because Boehner couldn't stand up to the feedom caucus. Whatever you want to believe. I believe what your saying is correct. Just that it is only part of the picture. Obama shares some blame in the matter is all.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 27, 2016 0:02:09 GMT
Not a Democrat, not a lefty, a typical generalization. Lets make a mess and when the Democrats don't clean up fast enough "fuck'em". Obama felt short because Boehner couldn't stand up to the feedom caucus. Whatever you want to believe. I believe what your saying is correct. Just that it is only part of the picture. Obama shares some blame in the matter is all. I agree that all Presidents can always do more. I want to see more bills going throigh Congress.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 27, 2016 0:24:25 GMT
I believe what your saying is correct. Just that it is only part of the picture. Obama shares some blame in the matter is all. I agree that all Presidents can always do more. I want to see more bills going throigh Congress. Reagan and Clinton were better presidents and better at working with the other party.
But yeah, I agree...this congress blows. How many swings and misses on Zika funding? It's team democrat vs. team republican with absolutely no pretense of doing what's best for the country. These are some seriously horrible people. Representitive Republic my ass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 1:03:26 GMT
I agree that all Presidents can always do more. I want to see more bills going throigh Congress. Reagan and Clinton were better presidents and better at working with the other party.
But yeah, I agree...this congress blows. How many swings and misses on Zika funding? It's team democrat vs. team republican with absolutely no pretense of doing what's best for the country. These are some seriously horrible people. Representitive Republic my ass.
They need to be voted out, just about all of them.
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Sept 27, 2016 2:16:51 GMT
If any watching the debate Trump is looking like he has no clue about any issue .Almost scary how ignorant he is I guess the debates are a good thing to show true colors .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 4:09:50 GMT
Trump blew it.
While he didn't have any whoppers (aside from the odd Sean Hannity comments that obscured an earlier interview in Esquire) he didn't make a convincing case for himself or against The Hag. He needed to let Hillary speak instead of making the debate about a referendum against him. The Hag is old hat with a lousy record and is trusted less than Bigfoot is believed. If you look at the debate like dynamics in music, he was the loudest and most forceful defending himself, which isn't good. For some reason he didn't highlight his exceptional tax rate for companies that repatriate money. Or the Clinton Foundation.
On the other hand, The Hag wins on points only. I don't think anybody is more enthusiastic about her now than earlier. She keeps trying to show people "the Real Donald Trump" which failed 16 candidates in the primary. She tried to land a few zingers that nobody even realized were jokes and showed little more than vacant rhetoric too tired to even include promises. The election is a week later and she's an early snowstorm from losing Michigan or Wisconsin.
Trump had a chance to close the deal and he settled for a call back. The call back bus never comes...
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Sept 27, 2016 10:48:16 GMT
My favorite part was when Clinton mentioned profit sharing because C-level people shouldn't make so much money.
This is America, fucknut. That's not how it works.
|
|