Paul Ryan is the VP pick

[hortysir]

Yeah, but can he see Russia from his house. The clown can't even do 2nd grade math.

Tina Fey, idiOt

 

[JoeB131]

Too funny, I think its cute how you twits forget how Reagan solvedhis economic issues in 2 years...and Bammy is an abject failure...what is really sad is that you Lefty's don't even know what Keynes advocated.

Here is a hint (counter cyclical)

Here's a hint. Maybe you should learn what you are talking about.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The 1980-83 Recession was intentionally caused by the Fed with the approval of both presidents Carter and Reagan with the sole intent of getting inflation down.

Everyone at the time was a lot more worried about the double digit inflation than the single digit unemployment.

When Reagan beat Carter, unemployment was at 7.5%. Which was pretty bad, but not as bad as it was going to get. It stayed 7-8% for most of 1981, then spiked in 1982. It hit a high of 10.8 in December, 1982. It was still well over 8% for most of 1983. Then in 1984, it came down to a 7.4% rate.

What gave Reagan bragging rights is not that he beat unemployment that badly, but that he got inflation under control.

The 2008-2011 Recession was caused by a major collapse in the housing market. Trillions in wealth simply vanished... Obama deserves credit for doing a stimulus, for continuing the bailouts that Bush started, or things would have been a lot worse.

By comparison, Obama got an economy with an unemployment rate of 8.3 in his first full month is office. The highest it got was 10%.

Final note. A big contributing factor was that while Reagan taxed like a Supply Sider, he spent like a Keynsian.

Federal spending was 590 Billion in Fiscal year 1980. By Fiscal year 1989, that had increased to 1.143 TRILLION. Almost doubling in size. The debt increased from 909 Billion to 2.8 Trillion.

By comparison, in FY 2008, Federal outlays were 2.9 Trillion, today they are 3.7 trillion. Maybe a 30% increase compared to the 90% increase under Reagan.

(smile) Poor kid, Reagan turned it around in just over two years, Bammy is drowning...

Now Jow, can you explain what Keynes meant by counter cyclical measure???

No you can't, you're just a little parrot.

Guy, I was around then. THings were actually pretty shitty in the early 1980's. And I supported reagan back then in my jaded youth as a young republican.

And again, this is what teh government did to itself...

I've blown you away with facts and figures, and you want to talk about "Cyclical measures"? Really?

How about addressing the points I brought up and backed up with facts and figures first?

 

[hortysir]

Yes, a lot of what was said about the Ryan budget were lies and mischaracterizations. The problem with picking Ryan is that they were good lies. Most people hear the "Ryan budget" and remember him pushing grandma off a cliff. Plus there weren't totally baseless, because his budget would change Medicare as we know it. When you're in such a close race, it seems like a real gamble to me, to pick someone like Ryan instead of a safer, more neutral bet.

"Fundamentally change America" is okay, tho

 

[JoeB131]

Learn to understand math, Ampad. You could quadruple income tax revenues on the rich and it still wouldn't be enough.

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Your first math lesson

2+2=/= 5

Once you understand that concept, you're on your way.

Um, you're one of the Wall Street douchebags who got us into this mess to start with, I don't take much of anything you say seriously...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, a lot of what was said about the Ryan budget were lies and mischaracterizations. The problem with picking Ryan is that they were good lies. Most people hear the "Ryan budget" and remember him pushing grandma off a cliff. Plus there weren't totally baseless, because his budget would change Medicare as we know it. When you're in such a close race, it seems like a real gamble to me, to pick someone like Ryan instead of a safer, more neutral bet.

"Fundamentally change America" is okay, tho

I keep saying that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Your first math lesson

2+2=/= 5

Once you understand that concept, you're on your way.

Um, you're one of the Wall Street douchebags who got us into this mess to start with, I don't take much of anything you say seriously...

obama is not george bailey. dumb ass./

 

[hortysir]

Wasn't it your boy who cut a half billion from medicare?

"Redistributed" it to ACA

You clowns apparently aren't very clear on exactly what you're talking about. I suggest you do a little more research. I have...

MM and TP doesn't count

 

[Toro]

Or the redistribution of wealth creates more wealth.. which it always does.

Keynesian economics works. Supply side doesn't. Learn to deal.

Too funny, I think its cute how you twits forget how Reagan solvedhis economic issues in 2 years...and Bammy is an abject failure...what is really sad is that you Lefty's don't even know what Keynes advocated.

Here is a hint (counter cyclical)

Here's a hint. Maybe you should learn what you are talking about.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The 1980-83 Recession was intentionally caused by the Fed with the approval of both presidents Carter and Reagan with the sole intent of getting inflation down.

Everyone at the time was a lot more worried about the double digit inflation than the single digit unemployment.

When Reagan beat Carter, unemployment was at 7.5%. Which was pretty bad, but not as bad as it was going to get. It stayed 7-8% for most of 1981, then spiked in 1982. It hit a high of 10.8 in December, 1982. It was still well over 8% for most of 1983. Then in 1984, it came down to a 7.4% rate.

What gave Reagan bragging rights is not that he beat unemployment that badly, but that he got inflation under control.

The 2008-2011 Recession was caused by a major collapse in the housing market. Trillions in wealth simply vanished... Obama deserves credit for doing a stimulus, for continuing the bailouts that Bush started, or things would have been a lot worse.

By comparison, Obama got an economy with an unemployment rate of 8.3 in his first full month is office. The highest it got was 10%.

Final note. A big contributing factor was that while Reagan taxed like a Supply Sider, he spent like a Keynsian.

Federal spending was 590 Billion in Fiscal year 1980. By Fiscal year 1989, that had increased to 1.143 TRILLION. Almost doubling in size. The debt increased from 909 Billion to 2.8 Trillion.

By comparison, in FY 2008, Federal outlays were 2.9 Trillion, today they are 3.7 trillion. Maybe a 30% increase compared to the 90% increase under Reagan.

The unemployment rate under Reagan hit 11%, higher than under Obama, which peaked at 10.9%, not 10%.

In 1983 and the first 7 months of 1984, total employment grew by 8.9 million under Reagan. In the corresponding 19 months after the end of 2010, total employment under Obama grew by 3.7 million. So it wasn't just inflation that Reagan got credit for. Reagan also got credit for a booming job market.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/LNU02000000.txt

 

[Toro]

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Your first math lesson

2+2=/= 5

Once you understand that concept, you're on your way.

Um, you're one of the Wall Street douchebags who got us into this mess to start with, I don't take much of anything you say seriously...

I present you with a fact - that you can't tax the rich enough to pay for it - and rather than answer, you divert away from that fact towards your pathological hatred of the rich.

Pretty sad.

PS, I'm not a banker.

 

[Amazed]

Here's a hint. Maybe you should learn what you are talking about.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The 1980-83 Recession was intentionally caused by the Fed with the approval of both presidents Carter and Reagan with the sole intent of getting inflation down.

Everyone at the time was a lot more worried about the double digit inflation than the single digit unemployment.

When Reagan beat Carter, unemployment was at 7.5%. Which was pretty bad, but not as bad as it was going to get. It stayed 7-8% for most of 1981, then spiked in 1982. It hit a high of 10.8 in December, 1982. It was still well over 8% for most of 1983. Then in 1984, it came down to a 7.4% rate.

What gave Reagan bragging rights is not that he beat unemployment that badly, but that he got inflation under control.

The 2008-2011 Recession was caused by a major collapse in the housing market. Trillions in wealth simply vanished... Obama deserves credit for doing a stimulus, for continuing the bailouts that Bush started, or things would have been a lot worse.

By comparison, Obama got an economy with an unemployment rate of 8.3 in his first full month is office. The highest it got was 10%.

Final note. A big contributing factor was that while Reagan taxed like a Supply Sider, he spent like a Keynsian.

Federal spending was 590 Billion in Fiscal year 1980. By Fiscal year 1989, that had increased to 1.143 TRILLION. Almost doubling in size. The debt increased from 909 Billion to 2.8 Trillion.

By comparison, in FY 2008, Federal outlays were 2.9 Trillion, today they are 3.7 trillion. Maybe a 30% increase compared to the 90% increase under Reagan.

(smile) Poor kid, Reagan turned it around in just over two years, Bammy is drowning...

Now Jow, can you explain what Keynes meant by counter cyclical measure???

No you can't, you're just a little parrot.

Guy, I was around then. THings were actually pretty shitty in the early 1980's. And I supported reagan back then in my jaded youth as a young republican.

And again, this is what teh government did to itself...

I've blown you away with facts and figures, and you want to talk about "Cyclical measures"? Really?

How about addressing the points I brought up and backed up with facts and figures first?

"The Reagan recovery had one of the fastest rates of growth we ever saw," said Barry Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution. "If anything it was too strong. It was spectacular."

Just take a look at the numbers:

The economy grew at 4.5% in 1983, with a few quarters of growth north of 8%. In 2011, meanwhile, the economy grew just 1.7%.

In just one month -- September 1983 -- the economy added more than a million jobs. For the full year, the economy added almost 3.5 million jobs, a trend that continued into 1984, an election year in which Reagan captured 49 states in a landslide victory.

Obama can claim job growth of 1.8 million in 2011. A welcome comeback, but still tepid by comparison.

Looking ahead to 2012, Obama could replicate the 243,000 jobs created in January over each of the next 11 months and still not approach Reagan's total for 1984 of 3.9 million.


Obama and Reagan: A tale of two recoveries - Feb. 6, 2012

You've blwon nobody away with anything sweetcheeks...and I was there too
Bammy can't even APPROACH what REagan did...

Now as to your last question, YOU tout Keynesian economics and you don't even know what it is...if you can't tell me what he meant by counter cyclical meant in his system it makes you no more than a parrot...I can duel with you with sources and citations all day long...what it comes down to is you believe what you want to...and it changes nothing, you don't know what the Keynesian systwm teaches.

You are dismissed.

 

[Katzndogz]

So much for democrats saying Romney doesn't have a plan.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The unemployment rate under Reagan hit 11%, higher than under Obama, which peaked at 10.9%, not 10%.

]

my figures came from the official government website... if you got other figures, I really don't care...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Shouldn't obama's failed policy be the focus?

We won’t know the actual effect of Obama’s policies on the economy until years from now, perhaps decades. There’s no way to accurately evaluate a given policy after only three and a half years.

The majority of voters are intelligent enough to know that it took years to create the economic conditions which lead to the December 2007 recession, and it will take more then three years to correct - there is no ‘quick fix,’ consequently ‘blaming Obama’ is ignorant and pointless, as recent polls indicate:

Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future but voters do not seem to be holding it against Democratic President Barack Obama, who slightly expanded his lead over Republican rival Mitt Romney this month, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

The poll indicated that 46 percent of registered voters thought Obama was stronger on jobs and the economy, compared with 44 percent for Romney. And on tax matters, 49 percent saw Obama as stronger, compared with 38 percent for Romney.

New poll shows Obama’s lead over Romney increasing slightly | Capitol Hill Blue

 

[hortysir]

So much for democrats saying Romney doesn't have a plan.

They're quick to pounce on Ryan's Budget Proposal.

Where is their Proposal?

It's been 4 years, Nimrods!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

You've blwon nobody away with anything sweetcheeks...and I was there too
Bammy can't even APPROACH what REagan did...

.

Not wasting my time on you, but actually, Reagan's term marks the begining of the decline.

He was the guy who said, it was okay to make war on unions and the middle class, and we've been in decline ever since.

 

[hortysir]

Shouldn't obama's failed policy be the focus?

We won’t know the actual effect of Obama’s policies on the economy until years from now, perhaps decades. There’s no way to accurately evaluate a given policy after only three and a half years.

The majority of voters are intelligent enough to know that it took years to create the economic conditions which lead to the December 2007 recession, and it will take more then three years to correct - there is no ‘quick fix,’ consequently ‘blaming Obama’ is ignorant and pointless, as recent polls indicate:

Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future but voters do not seem to be holding it against Democratic President Barack Obama, who slightly expanded his lead over Republican rival Mitt Romney this month, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

The poll indicated that 46 percent of registered voters thought Obama was stronger on jobs and the economy, compared with 44 percent for Romney. And on tax matters, 49 percent saw Obama as stronger, compared with 38 percent for Romney.

New poll shows Obama’s lead over Romney increasing slightly | Capitol Hill Blue

What a fucking hypocrite you are.

Just days after taking the oath, you and your hero Obama started blaming Boooosh, and haven't stopped since!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Shouldn't obama's failed policy be the focus?

We won’t know the actual effect of Obama’s policies on the economy until years from now, perhaps decades. There’s no way to accurately evaluate a given policy after only three and a half years.

The majority of voters are intelligent enough to know that it took years to create the economic conditions which lead to the December 2007 recession, and it will take more then three years to correct - there is no ‘quick fix,’ consequently ‘blaming Obama’ is ignorant and pointless, as recent polls indicate:

Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future but voters do not seem to be holding it against Democratic President Barack Obama, who slightly expanded his lead over Republican rival Mitt Romney this month, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

The poll indicated that 46 percent of registered voters thought Obama was stronger on jobs and the economy, compared with 44 percent for Romney. And on tax matters, 49 percent saw Obama as stronger, compared with 38 percent for Romney.

New poll shows Obama’s lead over Romney increasing slightly | Capitol Hill Blue

OMG What a fucking hypocrite

 

[Dr.House]

Yeah, but can he see Russia from his house. The clown can't even do 2nd grade math.

Tina Fey, idiOt

It's like they're not even trying anymore....

Regurgitate the same lies hoping some schmuck will believe it...

 

[NYcarbineer]

(smile) Poor kid, Reagan turned it around in just over two years, Bammy is drowning...

Now Jow, can you explain what Keynes meant by counter cyclical measure???

No you can't, you're just a little parrot.

Guy, I was around then. THings were actually pretty shitty in the early 1980's. And I supported reagan back then in my jaded youth as a young republican.

And again, this is what teh government did to itself...

I've blown you away with facts and figures, and you want to talk about "Cyclical measures"? Really?

How about addressing the points I brought up and backed up with facts and figures first?

"The Reagan recovery had one of the fastest rates of growth we ever saw," said Barry Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution. "If anything it was too strong. It was spectacular."

Just take a look at the numbers:

The economy grew at 4.5% in 1983, with a few quarters of growth north of 8%. In 2011, meanwhile, the economy grew just 1.7%.

In just one month -- September 1983 -- the economy added more than a million jobs. For the full year, the economy added almost 3.5 million jobs, a trend that continued into 1984, an election year in which Reagan captured 49 states in a landslide victory.

Obama can claim job growth of 1.8 million in 2011. A welcome comeback, but still tepid by comparison.

Looking ahead to 2012, Obama could replicate the 243,000 jobs created in January over each of the next 11 months and still not approach Reagan's total for 1984 of 3.9 million.


Obama and Reagan: A tale of two recoveries - Feb. 6, 2012

You've blwon nobody away with anything sweetcheeks...and I was there too
Bammy can't even APPROACH what REagan did...

Now as to your last question, YOU tout Keynesian economics and you don't even know what it is...if you can't tell me what he meant by counter cyclical meant in his system it makes you no more than a parrot...I can duel with you with sources and citations all day long...what it comes down to is you believe what you want to...and it changes nothing, you don't know what the Keynesian systwm teaches.

You are dismissed.

I don't suppose it matters to you that we had a very different economy 30 years ago when Reagan was president.

 

[Toro]

[

The unemployment rate under Reagan hit 11%, higher than under Obama, which peaked at 10.9%, not 10%.

]

my figures came from the official government website... if you got other figures, I really don't care...

Your link doesn't work.

My data comes from the St Louis Fed, which comes from the BLS, which is where you think you got your data. Just so you know

Title: Unemployment Rate - Full-Time Workers
Series ID: LNS14100000
Source: U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Release: Employment Situation
Seasonal Adjustment: Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Monthly
Units: Percent
Date Range: 1968-01-01 to 2012-07-01
Last Updated: 2012-08-03 8:55 AM CDT

...

1982-08-01 10.1
1982-09-01 10.5
1982-10-01 10.9
1982-11-01 11.2
1982-12-01 11.3
1983-01-01 10.9
1983-02-01 10.9

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/LNS14100000.txt

You read it wrong.