One Graph Says It All.

[boilermaker55]

You are so bad at this. If one graph says it all then this will trump the h*ll out of your little graph and kill all your lies.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SGXTTCfn3-o]Ed Schultz - The Truth Of Trickle Down - YouTube[/ame]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are so bad at this. If one graph says it all then this will trump the h*ll out of your little graph and kill all your lies.
Ed Schultz - The Truth Of Trickle Down - YouTube

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.
]

It doesnt do anything of the kind. But thanks for playing!
Now run along off the pier, you ignorant shit. The fact is Reagan's policies worked and after 5 years many more people were working. Obama's policies failed and after 5 years many fewer people are working. It's that simple.

 

[The T]

You are so bad at this. If one graph says it all then this will trump the h*ll out of your little graph and kill all your lies.
Ed Schultz - The Truth Of Trickle Down - YouTube

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Ed Shultz? Really?

Ed Schultz fired from MSNBC | dailyworldwidenews.com

Blog: Ed Schultz's radio show canceled

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Say Rabbi, could you explain your graph? Exactly what is it saying? Does it go about explaining the difference in severity of the economic downturn or how many workers were effected or how many lives were dramatically changed?
Thanks in advance!

Pretty simple, even for you.
Reagan's policies involved permanently changing tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and reducing regulation growth.
Obama's policies involved temporary targeted tax credits, massive deficit spending, and crony capitalism.
We see which policy produced actual growth.

You understand that the more severe the downturn, the more robust the recovery, right?
Economist's View: Why There Is No ?V? Rebound This Time

You haven't proven that 1982 is comparable to 2009.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.
]

Depends on who creates the graph and what information they used, now doesn't it?

The This-Says-It-All graph traces back to some guy named a.akamaihd's Facebook page. And it looks like the IJ Review, a blog, is where it was originally published by a guy named Fred.

The editor's first name is Bubba. Seriously. Bubba Atkinson.

Rabbit, if it wasn't for some rightwing blog, you wouldn't have anything to post.

Then you wont have any problem showing that the information in the graph is incorrect, right?

It doesn't matter if the data is correct. What matters is whether the two sets of data are an apples to apples comparison.

I and others have proven they aren't. Your graph is is therefore useless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Say Rabbi, could you explain your graph? Exactly what is it saying? Does it go about explaining the difference in severity of the economic downturn or how many workers were effected or how many lives were dramatically changed?
Thanks in advance!

Pretty simple, even for you.
Reagan's policies involved permanently changing tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and reducing regulation growth.
Obama's policies involved temporary targeted tax credits, massive deficit spending, and crony capitalism.
We see which policy produced actual growth.

You understand that the more severe the downturn, the more robust the recovery, right?
Economist's View: Why There Is No ?V? Rebound This Time

You haven't proven that 1982 is comparable to 2009.

That's true. I haven't proven that cake tastes like yogurt either. But you haven't disproven that Reagan's policies resulted in more Americans working while Obama's policies have resulted in fewer Americans working. Which is the subject here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Depends on who creates the graph and what information they used, now doesn't it?

The This-Says-It-All graph traces back to some guy named a.akamaihd's Facebook page. And it looks like the IJ Review, a blog, is where it was originally published by a guy named Fred.

The editor's first name is Bubba. Seriously. Bubba Atkinson.

Rabbit, if it wasn't for some rightwing blog, you wouldn't have anything to post.

Then you wont have any problem showing that the information in the graph is incorrect, right?

It doesn't matter if the data is correct. What matters is whether the two sets of data are an apples to apples comparison.

I and others have proven they aren't. Your graph is is therefore useless.

Comparing jobs created to jobs created seems pretty apple/apple to me.
You havent proven anything. You dont know the meaning of the term.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Oh look. A meaningless graph. Thanks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Oh look. A meaningless graph. Thanks.

My guess was correct. You weren't able to read it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pretty simple, even for you.
Reagan's policies involved permanently changing tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and reducing regulation growth.
Obama's policies involved temporary targeted tax credits, massive deficit spending, and crony capitalism.
We see which policy produced actual growth.

You understand that the more severe the downturn, the more robust the recovery, right?
Economist's View: Why There Is No ?V? Rebound This Time

You haven't proven that 1982 is comparable to 2009.

That's true. I haven't proven that cake tastes like yogurt either. But you haven't disproven that Reagan's policies resulted in more Americans working while Obama's policies have resulted in fewer Americans working. Which is the subject here.

You haven't offered enough of argument to need disproving. For that matter, I don't think you've even offered proof that the graph you posted was accurate, if you really want to get down to it.

The entire 81 - 82 recession occurred on Reagan's watch. Who are we blaming those job losses on?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pretty simple, even for you.
Reagan's policies involved permanently changing tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and reducing regulation growth.
Obama's policies involved temporary targeted tax credits, massive deficit spending, and crony capitalism.
We see which policy produced actual growth.

You understand that the more severe the downturn, the more robust the recovery, right?
Economist's View: Why There Is No ?V? Rebound This Time

You haven't proven that 1982 is comparable to 2009.

That's true. I haven't proven that cake tastes like yogurt either.

You're trying to argue that 2 sets of statistics don't need to be comparable to be comparable?

That's a bit daft, isn't it?

 

[hortysir]

Two lines on a graph do not, in fact, say it all.

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

Missed the whole "Net of Population Growth", hunh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh look. A meaningless graph. Thanks.

My guess was correct. You weren't able to read it.

You're right. A graph with no source and no information as to what it measures is not readable. If you can read that graph, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

 

[The Rabbi]

You haven't proven that 1982 is comparable to 2009.

That's true. I haven't proven that cake tastes like yogurt either. But you haven't disproven that Reagan's policies resulted in more Americans working while Obama's policies have resulted in fewer Americans working. Which is the subject here.

You haven't offered enough of argument to need disproving. For that matter, I don't think you've even offered proof that the graph you posted was accurate, if you really want to get down to it.

The entire 81 - 82 recession occurred on Reagan's watch. Who are we blaming those job losses on?

Yet you try to disprove it.
The argument is simple: Reagan's policies resulted in more people working 5 years after he took office than Obama's polcies 5 years after he took office. This isn't a hard concept. Except if you're stupid, which you clearly are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's true. I haven't proven that cake tastes like yogurt either. But you haven't disproven that Reagan's policies resulted in more Americans working while Obama's policies have resulted in fewer Americans working. Which is the subject here.

You haven't offered enough of argument to need disproving. For that matter, I don't think you've even offered proof that the graph you posted was accurate, if you really want to get down to it.

The entire 81 - 82 recession occurred on Reagan's watch. Who are we blaming those job losses on?

Yet you try to disprove it.
The argument is simple: Reagan's policies resulted in more people working 5 years after he took office than Obama's polcies 5 years after he took office. This isn't a hard concept. Except if you're stupid, which you clearly are.

1. Source the data in the chart.

2. The chart starts at the respective recoveries. That eliminates all 16 months of the recession that started and ended during Reagan's presidency. That means that a significant portion of those jobs credited to Reagan were jobs Reagan lost. lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh look. A meaningless graph. Thanks.

My guess was correct. You weren't able to read it.

You're right. A graph with no source and no information as to what it measures is not readable. If you can read that graph, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

You mean like your graph. I thought using your standards would be acceptable.

 

[The Rabbi]

You haven't offered enough of argument to need disproving. For that matter, I don't think you've even offered proof that the graph you posted was accurate, if you really want to get down to it.

The entire 81 - 82 recession occurred on Reagan's watch. Who are we blaming those job losses on?

Yet you try to disprove it.
The argument is simple: Reagan's policies resulted in more people working 5 years after he took office than Obama's polcies 5 years after he took office. This isn't a hard concept. Except if you're stupid, which you clearly are.

1. Source the data in the chart.

2. The chart starts at the respective recoveries. That eliminates all 16 months of the recession that started and ended during Reagan's presidency. That means that a significant portion of those jobs credited to Reagan were jobs Reagan lost. lol

1. Already addressed.
2. You think jobs are eliminated and then the very same job is re-created in recovery? You are stupid. The fact is that Reagan's policies produced jobs. Obama's have produced government dependency.

 

[The Rabbi]

One Graph Says It All

That the OP is an ignorant partisan hack and once again wrong, as usual.

Translation: I cannot refute the facts presented.

 

[The Rabbi]

More facts. Reagan's and Obama's approaches were diametrically opposite. One put people to work. One put people on welfare.
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes