Obama's Legacy: richest got richer and poorest got poorer faster than under Bush/Republicans

[leftwinger]

We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

You forgot the WILL to use it. They go in hands tied.....they can't wipe out the enemy like that.

 

[The Rabbi]

We dont want a fair fight. We want overwhelming force and the ability to project it.

You forgot the WILL to use it. They go in hands tied.....they can't wipe out the enemy like that.

Of course. I was referring to having the means. The will is something else. And we need more of it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12778924

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat gove

Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12778924

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat gove

Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:



Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term.

You asked why Democrats did not undo Reaganomics as a follow up to your original erroneous concept that Reagan has not been President for thirty years therefore destructive Reagan policies no longer existed.

You have been shown to be wrong on all your arguments.

Now you are saying Presidents have little to do with economic success or failure. It's external to the White House influences and Congress that takes the blame or gets credit for bad or good economic conditions.

So why do you blame Obama because wage growth remains low relative to productivity and Wall Street investors and Corporations doing well.

You arguments appear to shift from one extreme to another when the actual historic record is presented to you.

Your current argument tells me you think the private sector and a Republican controlled House and no Democratic super- majority in the U.S. Senate would be to blame for any bad news on the economy like low wage growth.

But your main focus is to blame Obama. You make no sense.

 

[Brain357]

Ray 12778924

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat gove

Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:

View attachment 54432

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

Republicans want to spend more on military and give tax breaks to the richest. That will never lower deficits.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

 

[Brain357]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

 

[rightwinger]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

 

[Brain357]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

Yes I was agreeing obama was handed a much worse country. Two pointless wars! What president has ever been handed two wars, huge debt, and a bad economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12778924

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat gove

Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:

View attachment 54432

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

Republicans want to spend more on military and give tax breaks to the richest. That will never lower deficits.

So when was the last time Republicans gave a tax break to the richest?

 

[Brain357]

Ray 12778924

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat gove

Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:

View attachment 54432

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

Republicans want to spend more on military and give tax breaks to the richest. That will never lower deficits.

So when was the last time Republicans gave a tax break to the richest?

They have been trying to get rid of the inheritance tax. That won't balance a budget.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

There was no surplurs. Bush was handed the dot com implosion, 9/11, and a recession. As well as the Democrats' failed policy on terrorism.
Democrats fuck up, blame Republicans, and then Republicans come in and fix it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term.

You asked why Democrats did not undo Reaganomics as a follow up to your original erroneous concept that Reagan has not been President for thirty years therefore destructive Reagan policies no longer existed.

You have been shown to be wrong on all your arguments.

Now you are saying Presidents have little to do with economic success or failure. It's external to the White House influences and Congress that takes the blame or gets credit for bad or good economic conditions.

So why do you blame Obama because wage growth remains low relative to productivity and Wall Street investors and Corporations doing well.

You arguments appear to shift from one extreme to another when the actual historic record is presented to you.

Your current argument tells me you think the private sector and a Republican controlled House and no Democratic super- majority in the U.S. Senate would be to blame for any bad news on the economy like low wage growth.

But your main focus is to blame Obama. You make no sense.

Then I'll explain it to you:

The rich got richer under DumBama thanks to the federal reserve pouring in trillions of dollars into our stock market. The game was rigged and the big players knew the hand they were dealt.

In the meantime, we've allowed this illegal (and legal) immigration to get out of control. Foreigners lower our pay standards in this country because they will work for much lower wages. DumBama has put out a welcome mat on our southern border all in the name of buying votes.

Wealth is created in the private market-not by government. All government can do is make it more or less inviting for the private market to create jobs and wealth. DumBama is the most anti-business President we've ever had in our lifetime.

Congress is doing what they can to limit and stop illegal immigration, but remember: Obama said he has a cell phone and he has a pen. He's went around Congress so many times it could make your head spin. As Donald Trump said yesterday, the latest Federal Court ruling stating DumBama can't give executive orders to give a free pass to illegals was unconstitutional was a great call. Now DumBama will take it to the Supreme Court more than likely.

 

[rightwinger]

Ray 12778924

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat gove

Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:

View attachment 54432

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

Republicans want to spend more on military and give tax breaks to the richest. That will never lower deficits.

So when was the last time Republicans gave a tax break to the richest?

Republicans dropped it from 70% to 50% in 1981
Then from 50% to 30% in 1987

40% drop in six years

 

[rightwinger]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

There was no surplurs. Bush was handed the dot com implosion, 9/11, and a recession. As well as the Democrats' failed policy on terrorism.
Democrats fuck up, blame Republicans, and then Republicans come in and fix it.

Bush claimed a surplus as soon as he took office and used it as a justification to cut taxes

Are you claiming he lied?

 

[The Rabbi]

Ray 12778924

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat gove

Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:

View attachment 54432

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

Republicans want to spend more on military and give tax breaks to the richest. That will never lower deficits.

So when was the last time Republicans gave a tax break to the richest?

Republicans dropped it from 70% to 50% in 1981
Then from 50% to 30% in 1987

40% drop in six years

Thats not a 40% drop. You also failed math as well as economics.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

There was no surplurs. Bush was handed the dot com implosion, 9/11, and a recession. As well as the Democrats' failed policy on terrorism.
Democrats fuck up, blame Republicans, and then Republicans come in and fix it.

Bush claimed a surplus as soon as he took office and used it as a justification to cut taxes

Are you claiming he lied?

Are you claiming 9/11 and the dot com bust never happened?

 

[rightwinger]

Ray 12778924 Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:

View attachment 54432

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

Republicans want to spend more on military and give tax breaks to the richest. That will never lower deficits.

So when was the last time Republicans gave a tax break to the richest?

Republicans dropped it from 70% to 50% in 1981
Then from 50% to 30% in 1987

40% drop in six years

Thats not a 40% drop. You also failed math as well as economics.

70% to 30%= 40%

 

[rightwinger]

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

There was no surplurs. Bush was handed the dot com implosion, 9/11, and a recession. As well as the Democrats' failed policy on terrorism.
Democrats fuck up, blame Republicans, and then Republicans come in and fix it.

Bush claimed a surplus as soon as he took office and used it as a justification to cut taxes

Are you claiming he lied?

Are you claiming 9/11 and the dot com bust never happened?

Actually, I am claiming the Bush tax cuts happened

Why would you slash taxes to pay for post 9-11 wars?
How stupid can you be?