Obama/Reagan On Jobs, Growth & Investing

A conservative writer at Forbes Magazine, Adam Hartung, proves Obama is the best modern president economically.

Better than reagan.

Before all you right wingers claim Mr. Hartung is a liberal, he made two small donations in the 2012 election. Both of them for romney.

Obama Outperforms Reagan on Jobs, Growth and Investing

Adam Hartung - $500 in Political Contributions for 2012


Yeah, but Reagan knew that tax breaks were hurting the economy and raised taxes.

Obama continues to allow the rich to get out of paying their taxes---wealth trickles UP.
 
A conservative writer at Forbes Magazine, Adam Hartung, proves Obama is the best modern president economically.

Better than reagan.

Before all you right wingers claim Mr. Hartung is a liberal, he made two small donations in the 2012 election. Both of them for romney.

Obama Outperforms Reagan on Jobs, Growth and Investing

Adam Hartung - $500 in Political Contributions for 2012


Yeah, but Reagan knew that tax breaks were hurting the economy and raised taxes.

Obama continues to allow the rich to get out of paying their taxes---wealth trickles UP.
Were tax rates higher or lower after Reagan's terms?
Yeah. Pwned again.
 
Wow, the brain dead lefties here claim Reagan was a terrible aweful president and then compare Obama to him. They are truly idiots.

oh man isn't that the truth
liberalism is proven it's a mental disorder
Spits the idiot who claimed Obama has a 70% disapproval rating yet can't produce even a single poll with that number. :dunno:

Your ODS is showing.

By the way, the average among some of the latest polls has his disapproval rating at 53.2%, with the highest being 56%. High? Yes. But nowhere near 70%.

If you want to see what a 70% disapproval rating actually looks like, go back and look at some of Bush's JARs. His disapproval peaked at a record high of 77%
Over half the people disapprove of Obama's performance despite the media still fawining on him. Success!

Considerably more than half disapproved of Bush Jr. in the second term of his presidency and yet, Righties are still fawning over him. Success!! We all misunderstimateded hihm!
 
When are rightards going to learn? Obama never said there are 57 states. :eusa_naughty:

He did once, during the 2008 primaries against then Sen. Hillary Clinton, tired and on the trail, because there are 50 states plus DC who hold primaries, plus 5 territories. That makes for 56 contests. And TEXAS holds a two-stop waltz of a primary on two separate dates, so actually, 56 landmasses but 57 separate contests.

Of course he corrected himself quickly thereafter, but Righties are still jacking off to that one, because they are too fucking stupid to realize that he corrected himself. This is similar to Gerald R. Ford's foreign policy gaffe in the 1976 debates against then Gov. Jimmy Carter, when the President said "There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe." Of course, he corrected himself later. It was simply a gaffe. People make gaffes.

But Righties, they are still orgasming on something minor from 6 years ago. That says something. Really, it does.
 
Stat that peak was caused by Carter, just as unemployment peaked in Obama's first year in office in 2009. Quite stupid to blame a sitting president for the failures of the previous administration. Yes, I said that out loud.


So, you are saying that Carter was president in 1982, what?? Because that peak happened TWO years after Carter lost his-reelection bid.

:rofl:

My Gawd, some Righties really ARE stupid.
 
If Obama were as good as Reagan, he would have won 56 states in his 2012 reeelction
When are rightards going to learn? Obama never said there are 57 states. :eusa_naughty:
A liar to boot:


I knew there would be an idiot to take that bait. :mm:

Obama said there were 60 states. He never said there were 57 states. Did you even bother to listen to the video you posted? Or did you just not understand what he said?
Desperation does weird things to people, understood.

While future historians with a liberal slant will attempt to be kind to Obama, his unsuitability and resulting failure will be impossible to deny and stand in stark contrast to Reagan's successes.
 
Stat that peak was caused by Carter, just as unemployment peaked in Obama's first year in office in 2009. Quite stupid to blame a sitting president for the failures of the previous administration. Yes, I said that out loud.


So, you are saying that Carter was president in 1982, what?? Because that peak happened TWO years after Carter lost his-reelection bid.

:rofl:

My Gawd, some Righties really ARE stupid.
You so get why everyone thinks you're a slag, right?
 
Stat that peak was caused by Carter, just as unemployment peaked in Obama's first year in office in 2009. Quite stupid to blame a sitting president for the failures of the previous administration. Yes, I said that out loud.


So, you are saying that Carter was president in 1982, what?? Because that peak happened TWO years after Carter lost his-reelection bid.

:rofl:

My Gawd, some Righties really ARE stupid.

He's not stupid.

He's young and he made a mistake.

Gosh..weren't you just defending Obama for the same thing?
 
If Obama were as good as Reagan, he would have won 56 states in his 2012 reeelction
When are rightards going to learn? Obama never said there are 57 states. :eusa_naughty:
A liar to boot:


I knew there would be an idiot to take that bait. :mm:

Obama said there were 60 states. He never said there were 57 states. Did you even bother to listen to the video you posted? Or did you just not understand what he said?
Desperation does weird things to people, understood.

While future historians with a liberal slant will attempt to be kind to Obama, his unsuitability and resulting failure will be impossible to deny and stand in stark contrast to Reagan's successes.


Barring any major screw ups in the next two years, Obama's presidency will hold up very well.

While Reagan's will remain one that is marred by bad policy, corruption, law breaking and really nice hair.
 
If Obama were as good as Reagan, he would have won 56 states in his 2012 reeelction
When are rightards going to learn? Obama never said there are 57 states. :eusa_naughty:
A liar to boot:


I knew there would be an idiot to take that bait. :mm:

Obama said there were 60 states. He never said there were 57 states. Did you even bother to listen to the video you posted? Or did you just not understand what he said?
Desperation does weird things to people, understood.

While future historians with a liberal slant will attempt to be kind to Obama, his unsuitability and resulting failure will be impossible to deny and stand in stark contrast to Reagan's successes.


Barring any major screw ups in the next two years, Obama's presidency will hold up very well.

While Reagan's will remain one that is marred by bad policy, corruption, law breaking and really nice hair.
If Obama ushers in an age of peace and prosperity, then Obama's legacy could hold its own against Reagan. As it stands now, he is squarely in Jimmy Carter territory. Futile rear guard attempts are just that.
 
Stat that peak was caused by Carter, just as unemployment peaked in Obama's first year in office in 2009. Quite stupid to blame a sitting president for the failures of the previous administration. Yes, I said that out loud.


So, you are saying that Carter was president in 1982, what?? Because that peak happened TWO years after Carter lost his-reelection bid.

:rofl:

My Gawd, some Righties really ARE stupid.

He's not stupid.

He's young and he made a mistake.

Gosh..weren't you just defending Obama for the same thing?


The difference is: the information was right in front of TK's eyes and he was not exhausted from 24/7 non-stop campaigning. So, yeah, you really cannot compare the two.
 
If Obama were as good as Reagan, he would have won 56 states in his 2012 reeelction
When are rightards going to learn? Obama never said there are 57 states. :eusa_naughty:
A liar to boot:


I knew there would be an idiot to take that bait. :mm:

Obama said there were 60 states. He never said there were 57 states. Did you even bother to listen to the video you posted? Or did you just not understand what he said?
Desperation does weird things to people, understood.

While future historians with a liberal slant will attempt to be kind to Obama, his unsuitability and resulting failure will be impossible to deny and stand in stark contrast to Reagan's successes.

Cries the math genius who can't count to 60. What's the problem, not enough fingers? LOL

And by failures, you mean like overseeing the longest stretch of employment growth in the private sector in U.S. history? Or the stock market doubling? Or providing a national healthcare plan?
 
Last edited:
How damn sad that they have to go ALL THE WAY back to Reagan. what, 20-30 years ago to make Obambam out to be that guy that walks water. He was sent to LORD over us from the heavens....and walla we are saved

I think that 70% of the people who disapproves of Dear Leader might not swallow the bs propaganda
 
How damn sad that they have to go ALL THE WAY back to Reagan. what, 20-30 years ago to make Obambam out to be that guy that walks water. He was sent to LORD over us from the heavens....and walla we are saved

I think that 70% of the people who disapproves of Dear Leader might not swallow the bs propaganda
How come you can't cite a poll with 70% disapproval?? :dunno:

Whassamatter, you're too busy working on overthrowing the government in American Spring II where you might double the crowd this time to reach triple digit attendance? :lmao:

"Let's roll," Steph! Before it's too late!!! :mm:
 
Wow, the brain dead lefties here claim Reagan was a terrible aweful president and then compare Obama to him. They are truly idiots.

oh man isn't that the truth
liberalism is proven it's a mental disorder
Spits the idiot who claimed Obama has a 70% disapproval rating yet can't produce even a single poll with that number. :dunno:

Your ODS is showing.

By the way, the average among some of the latest polls has his disapproval rating at 53.2%, with the highest being 56%. High? Yes. But nowhere near 70%.

If you want to see what a 70% disapproval rating actually looks like, go back and look at some of Bush's JARs. His disapproval peaked at a record high of 77%
Over half the people disapprove of Obama's performance despite the media still fawining on him. Success!

Considerably more than half disapproved of Bush Jr. in the second term of his presidency and yet, Righties are still fawning over him. Success!! We all misunderstimateded hihm!
BOOOSH!
Liberals call Bush the worst president ever. And then compare him to Obama on every issue.
funny.
In no other world besdies Liberalville does a 50% disapproval rating equal success.
 
When are rightards going to learn? Obama never said there are 57 states. :eusa_naughty:

He did once, during the 2008 primaries against then Sen. Hillary Clinton, tired and on the trail, because there are 50 states plus DC who hold primaries, plus 5 territories. That makes for 56 contests. And TEXAS holds a two-stop waltz of a primary on two separate dates, so actually, 56 landmasses but 57 separate contests.

Of course he corrected himself quickly thereafter, but Righties are still jacking off to that one, because they are too fucking stupid to realize that he corrected himself. This is similar to Gerald R. Ford's foreign policy gaffe in the 1976 debates against then Gov. Jimmy Carter, when the President said "There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe." Of course, he corrected himself later. It was simply a gaffe. People make gaffes.

But Righties, they are still orgasming on something minor from 6 years ago. That says something. Really, it does.
Wow what a spin. Even for you.
He said 57 states plus one left to go and Alaska and Hawaii. And when does a candidate visit Guam to campaign?
But adherence to facts and truth was never an issue to you. Because you're fucking stupid.
 
Now, as to the actual information in the OP, here is a chart that was provided at the link. That chart pretty much says it all:

Unemployment-Reagan-v-Obama.jpg
Only a fool thinks that chart says it all. How many people are underemployed, on disability or dropped out of the job market altogether? Those are important factors to consider, ignoring them is propaganda.
 
Now, as to the actual information in the OP, here is a chart that was provided at the link. That chart pretty much says it all:

Unemployment-Reagan-v-Obama.jpg
Only a fool thinks that chart says it all. How many people are underemployed, on disability or dropped out of the job market altogether? Those are important factors to consider, ignoring them is propaganda.
Of course Statistheilhitler is an illiterate masquerading as a buffoon.
Here are two charts that speak volumes: Notice that during Reagan's recovery the participation rate increased. This is because a rising economy encourages people to re enter the workforce. The opposite of Obama.
latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1981_1988_all_period_M12_data.gif


latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2009_2014_all_period_M08_data.gif
 

Forum List

Back
Top