Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. Already addressed.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
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.
1. Already addressed.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
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.
1. No you didn't. I want a link to the source data, and the methodology.
2. If you want argue that cyclical industries never lay off people during a recession and then call them back when the economy recovers I want to hear that argument.
The Reagan recovery was in large part from the Reagan recession.
Maybe at this point it's a good time to remember what a business cycle. Look it up.
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.
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.
1. No you didn't. I want a link to the source data, and the methodology.
2. If you want argue that cyclical industries never lay off people during a recession and then call them back when the economy recovers I want to hear that argument.
The Reagan recovery was in large part from the Reagan recession.
Maybe at this point it's a good time to remember what a business cycle. Look it up.
1/ People in hell want ice water
2/ You want to argue that employment in the US is made up of cyclical industries go ahead. You couldn't look any more foolish.
Reagan inherited a mess from the Democrats and set about cleaning it up. It was a worse mess than anything Obama inherited. Unlike Obama Reagan succeeded. Unlike Obama Reagan had the grace not to bad mouth his predecessor.
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.
You are supposedly comparing "jobs created whose creation can be credited to specific policies by a specific president" to argue for one president's policies being superior to another's.
But you are actually using numbers that are simply 'jobs created for any reason'.
Your numbers contain hundreds of thousands of jobs that were created without any meaningful connection to presidential policies.
That is not a comparison that supports your argument.
It was far worse. UE had been creeping up for some time. He had a huge inflation problem Obama didnt have. Our basic industries were sick and ailing.1. No you didn't. I want a link to the source data, and the methodology.
2. If you want argue that cyclical industries never lay off people during a recession and then call them back when the economy recovers I want to hear that argument.
The Reagan recovery was in large part from the Reagan recession.
Maybe at this point it's a good time to remember what a business cycle. Look it up.
1/ People in hell want ice water
2/ You want to argue that employment in the US is made up of cyclical industries go ahead. You couldn't look any more foolish.
Reagan inherited a mess from the Democrats and set about cleaning it up. It was a worse mess than anything Obama inherited. Unlike Obama Reagan succeeded. Unlike Obama Reagan had the grace not to bad mouth his predecessor.
Obama inherited -6% GDP and 500,000+ jobs per month being lost.
What were Reagan's numbers that prove it was a worse mess?
It was far worse. UE had been creeping up for some time. He had a huge inflation problem Obama didnt have. Our basic industries were sick and ailing.1/ People in hell want ice water
2/ You want to argue that employment in the US is made up of cyclical industries go ahead. You couldn't look any more foolish.
Reagan inherited a mess from the Democrats and set about cleaning it up. It was a worse mess than anything Obama inherited. Unlike Obama Reagan succeeded. Unlike Obama Reagan had the grace not to bad mouth his predecessor.
Obama inherited -6% GDP and 500,000+ jobs per month being lost.
What were Reagan's numbers that prove it was a worse mess?
Obama came in during the down part of the business cycle. He proceeded to make it worse.
Comparing jobs created to jobs created seems pretty apple/apple to me.
You havent proven anything. You dont know the meaning of the term.
You are supposedly comparing "jobs created whose creation can be credited to specific policies by a specific president" to argue for one president's policies being superior to another's.
But you are actually using numbers that are simply 'jobs created for any reason'.
Your numbers contain hundreds of thousands of jobs that were created without any meaningful connection to presidential policies.
That is not a comparison that supports your argument.
So government policies have no effect on the economy? You really wanna run with it?
You are supposedly comparing "jobs created whose creation can be credited to specific policies by a specific president" to argue for one president's policies being superior to another's.
But you are actually using numbers that are simply 'jobs created for any reason'.
Your numbers contain hundreds of thousands of jobs that were created without any meaningful connection to presidential policies.
That is not a comparison that supports your argument.
So government policies have no effect on the economy? You really wanna run with it?
No I didn't say that, but you said the opposite. You are arguing that ALL jobs created are the direct result of presidential policies.
That is absurd.
Comparing jobs created to jobs created seems pretty apple/apple to me.
You havent proven anything. You dont know the meaning of the term.
You are supposedly comparing "jobs created whose creation can be credited to specific policies by a specific president" to argue for one president's policies being superior to another's.
But you are actually using numbers that are simply 'jobs created for any reason'.
Your numbers contain hundreds of thousands of jobs that were created without any meaningful connection to presidential policies.
That is not a comparison that supports your argument.
So government policies have no effect on the economy? You really wanna run with it?
So government policies have no effect on the economy? You really wanna run with it?
No I didn't say that, but you said the opposite. You are arguing that ALL jobs created are the direct result of presidential policies.
That is absurd.
Argumentum ad absurdum. Rabbi Rules!
Plus you can thank Reagan for the break up of the traditional American family. Reagan was a swift kick to the nuts of Leave It To Beaver.
Plus you can thank Reagan for the break up of the traditional American family. Reagan was a swift kick to the nuts of Leave It To Beaver.
I heard Reagan was responsible for the crack epidemic too.
Now go STFU, you ignorant troll.
No I didn't say that, but you said the opposite. You are arguing that ALL jobs created are the direct result of presidential policies.
That is absurd.
Argumentum ad absurdum. Rabbi Rules!
Does your chart consists of:
1. All jobs created, or,
2. only jobs created as a result of presidential policies?
Argumentum ad absurdum. Rabbi Rules!
Does your chart consists of:
1. All jobs created, or,
2. only jobs created as a result of presidential policies?
I appear to have rendered the Rabbi incapable of a relevant response.
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.
Does your chart consists of:
1. All jobs created, or,
2. only jobs created as a result of presidential policies?
I appear to have rendered the Rabbi incapable of a relevant response.
Your question is idiotic. Thus no response.
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.
Your assertion has no merit. It is nothing more than a partisan effort to pretend that the economy is currently unfixable, and therefore Obama and his liberal/socialist economic policies are not at fault.
If the loons were just half as good at working solutions as they are at fabricating excuses, the economy would be booming.
