Thanks to Reaganomics 80 Percent...

[DiamondDave]

SPENDING UNDER OBAMA IS NOT DOWN

Ignorance.. plain ignorance

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And-----and the Reagan recovery that Republicans are wont to tout was Keynesian.

What's more, President Reagan greatly increased government spending to aid the economic recovery. In contrast, government spending under President Obama is falling at a rate of 1.4 percent, the first decline in real spending since the 1970s, as The Wall Street Journal noted:

​

.​

Obama's deficits are bigger than Reagan's entire budgets.

Are you suggesting the Republican House vote to raise taxes? As you can see by the above chart spending under Obama is down - way down.

“People ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic” ~ Bill Clinton

Or-----or are you suggesting the Republican House vote to cut popular programs? As you can see from the article below...


...On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed.

Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent.

Support for higher taxes rose by 5 percentage points after Obama called for that as one element of his deficit-reduction strategy last week. Opposition dropped by 6 points. The poll was conducted before and after the speech.

Americans clearly don't want the government to cut Medicare, the government health program for the elderly, or Medicaid, the program for the poor. Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to drastically restructure and reduce those programs, while Obama calls for trimming their costs but leaving them essentially intact.

Voters oppose cuts to those programs by 80-18 percent. Even among conservatives, only 29 percent supported cuts, and 68 percent opposed them.

See what I'm saying, Reaganomic arithmetic is an idiotic economic plan and-----and now-----now a conundrum for the Republican party. Jude Wanniski sold his voodoo economics to Reagan as a political strategy NOT an economic plan.
.

As you can see by the above chart spending under Obama is down - way down.

As you can see by the above chart liberals can't do math. And they lie.

 

[Star]

Presidents leave legacies, George Washington did, FDR did and so it is with Reagan's legacy that of tripling the national debt.

And-----and the Reagan recovery that Republicans are wont to tout was Keynesian.

What's more, President Reagan greatly increased government spending to aid the economic recovery. In contrast, government spending under President Obama is falling at a rate of 1.4 percent, the first decline in real spending since the 1970s, as The Wall Street Journal noted:

​

.​

Those fake numbers for Obama are hilarious!

Really?
The chart I C&Ped came from the WSJ and-----and along with the chart was this; excerpted from the WSJ - "Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget."

I showed you mine - now show me yours or-----or continue to whine while having a, how did the WSJ put it, oh yeah, having "a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget."

.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And-----and the Reagan recovery that Republicans are wont to tout was Keynesian.

What's more, President Reagan greatly increased government spending to aid the economic recovery. In contrast, government spending under President Obama is falling at a rate of 1.4 percent, the first decline in real spending since the 1970s, as The Wall Street Journal noted:

​

.​

Those fake numbers for Obama are hilarious!

Really?
The chart I C&Ped came from the WSJ and-----and along with the chart was this; excerpted from the WSJ - "Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget."

I showed you mine - now show me yours or-----or continue to whine while having a, how did the WSJ put it, oh yeah, having "a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget."

.​

Yeah, Rex Nutting is funny. Bad at math, but funny.

In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.

You're not charging Bush with Obama's stimulus here, or the bank TARP, are you?
That would be dishonest, Rex.

 

[Spoonman]

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2008.

No wonder y'all blame him for the crash of fall 2008

No, we don't blame him for the crash. We blame him for the Worst Recovery Ever.

80% of the people near poverty and they have the nerve to call it a recovery? what a joke. if we're at 80% near poverty there is no recovery. got to love the liberal arguments

 

[Star]

No wonder y'all blame him for the crash of fall 2008

No, we don't blame him for the crash. We blame him for the Worst Recovery Ever.

80% of the people near poverty and they have the nerve to call it a recovery? what a joke. if we're at 80% near poverty there is no recovery. got to love the liberal arguments

When you read the article linked in the OP, you obviously missed this part; "Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream."

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or-----or are you just another in the long list of Republicans that make comments on threads and/or articles BEFORE actually reading them?
.

 

[francoHFW]

As long as we have Voodoo taxes (middle class paying more % than the rich, corps 12%-the big ones getting away with murder), the recovery will only be a return to the rich doing great, the nonrich and the country fecked.Though O-care and and that little tax hike on the rich will help a bit...we need a jobs/infrastructure act and education/training help...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As long as we have Voodoo taxes (middle class paying more % than the rich, corps 12%-the big ones getting away with murder), the recovery will only be a return to the rich doing great, the nonrich and the country fecked.Though O-care and and that little tax hike on the rich will help a bit...we need a jobs/infrastructure act and education/training help...

As long as we have Voodoo taxes (middle class paying more % than the rich

But, of course, the rich pay a higher % than the middle class.

Warren pays a higher % than his secretary.

 

[francoHFW]

And Romney pays 9%, the richest 17%, the middle class 24%, and you are a brainwashed Pub dupe LOL.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And Romney pays 9%, the richest 17%, the middle class 24%, and you are a brainwashed Pub dupe LOL.

Show me the math that proves those 3 numbers.

 

[francoHFW]

Well, it's tough- we don't have a propaganda machine to organize our BS and repeat it 200 times lkie billionnaire Pubs have bought for you dupes, but here:

"That’s really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income — which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

When politicians try to convince you that half of Americans aren’t really paying taxes, it’s usually because the real data undermines their preferred policies. For instance, you wouldn’t look at these numbers and think tax cuts for the rich need to be a huge priority. And that’s one reason people who want more tax cuts for the rich don’t like to show you these numbers.

* Romney’s 13.9 percent rate only counts his federal taxes. He hasn’t released his state and local returns for 2011, so we can’t say how that would change his total tax rate. But given the state and local averages for someone in his income group, it’s likely to remain well below the 25-30 percent that is typical."

Washington Post

I saw reports that Romney would have paid 9% if he'd figured his taxes the way he had before- wanted to make it look good. I have seen the numbers I posted- can't find them now, but as you can see....this basically says the same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, it's tough- we don't have a propaganda machine to organize our BS and repeat it 200 times lkie billionnaire Pubs have bought for you dupes, but here:

"That’s really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income — which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

When politicians try to convince you that half of Americans aren’t really paying taxes, it’s usually because the real data undermines their preferred policies. For instance, you wouldn’t look at these numbers and think tax cuts for the rich need to be a huge priority. And that’s one reason people who want more tax cuts for the rich don’t like to show you these numbers.

* Romney’s 13.9 percent rate only counts his federal taxes. He hasn’t released his state and local returns for 2011, so we can’t say how that would change his total tax rate. But given the state and local averages for someone in his income group, it’s likely to remain well below the 25-30 percent that is typical."

Washington Post

I saw reports that Romney would have paid 9% if he'd figured his taxes the way he had before- wanted to make it look good. I have seen the numbers I posted- can't find them now, but as you can see....this basically says the same.

most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income

If you believe that, you aren't very familiar with our tax code.

 

[HomeInspect]

I guess blaming Bush is no longer fashionable, so the mindless try something different

 

[francoHFW]

http://ctj.org/images/taxday2012table.jpg

Poor people pay more in state and local, and taxes and fees, %wise, than many rich do in all taxes. That's what's happened under Voodoo. Cut all federal taxes, and state, local, and payroll taxes, and fees (DMV, you name it) go up, and kill the nonrich- while the dupes go on about the 47% paying no taxes...

 

[jgarden]

By the end of the much maligned Carter Administration, the federal debt/GDP ratio had reach its lowest level (32.5%) since the end of WW2

Despite the Reagan rhetoric about smaller government, his Administration expanded the federal debt/GDP ratio from 32.5% to 53.1% - an increase of +20.6%.

Under the GHW Bush Administration the federal debt/GDP ratio went from 53.1% to 66.1% - an increase of +13.0%

During the "tax and spend" Clinton Administration, the federal debt/GDP ratio actually decreased from 66.1% to 56.4% - down - 9.7%

The GW Bush Administration increased the federal debt/GDP ratio from 56.4% to 84.2% - up +25.3% (over $6 trillion)

The last 3 Republican administrations have contributed a combined total of 58.9% to the federal debt/GDP debt.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[francoHFW]

Overall, the nonrich and the country go to HELL under YOUR BSing heroes...

Memorize the facts, hater dupes:

Memorize the facts, hater dupes:1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105% – Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 19802. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34% – Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% – Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0% – Reagan1982 = 11.2% – Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)A 5.6 times increase.6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

 

[thereisnospoon]

Reagan hasn't been president since January 1989, so your blame is misplaced.

Obama, on the other hand, has been in office since January 2008.

The OP is full of it. Hell, what's next? Blame Eisenhower for the war in Afghanistan?

I actually did quite well with Ronnie in office. Of course, I have never laid the blame OR the credit of the office of president. None of those clowns have ever done a damned thing for me.

Whether I did well or badly, it was all on ME.

I guess the only thing I can look to former presidents to is JFK and Clinton, for turning the WH into a Whore House.

An absurdity to make a point.

Oh.. I blame Eisenhower for highway traffic deaths. If he had not come up with the idea of the Interstate System, people would drive slower..

 

[thereisnospoon]

.
Thanks to Reaganomics 80 Percent...

...Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment


Excerpted from Hope Yen's AP article;
80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment



*The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.



*"They [uneducated whites] don't trust big government, but it doesn't mean they want no government," says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. His research found that many of them would support anti-poverty programs if focused broadly on job training and infrastructure investment.
.

This article is......stupid.
It contains an interminable amount of inaccuracies.
And its blatantly racist.

 

[francoHFW]

Well, it's tough- we don't have a propaganda machine to organize our BS and repeat it 200 times lkie billionnaire Pubs have bought for you dupes, but here:

"That’s really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income — which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

When politicians try to convince you that half of Americans aren’t really paying taxes, it’s usually because the real data undermines their preferred policies. For instance, you wouldn’t look at these numbers and think tax cuts for the rich need to be a huge priority. And that’s one reason people who want more tax cuts for the rich don’t like to show you these numbers.

* Romney’s 13.9 percent rate only counts his federal taxes. He hasn’t released his state
and local returns for 2011, so we can’t say how that would change his total tax rate. But given the state and local averages for someone in his income group, it’s likely to remain well below the 25-30 percent that is typical."

Washington Post

I saw reports that Romney would have paid 9% if he'd figured his taxes the way he had before- wanted to make it look good. I have seen the numbers I posted- can't find them now, but as you can see....this basically says the same.

most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income

If you believe that, you aren't very familiar with our tax code.

Wrong again- check this, and add fees for gov't BS, and the poor pay as much as the rich in ALL taxes and fees, under voodoo...

http://ctj.org/images/taxday2012table.jpg

 

[Star]

.
Thanks to Reaganomics 80 Percent...

...Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment


Excerpted from Hope Yen's AP article;
80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment



*The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.



*"They [uneducated whites] don't trust big government, but it doesn't mean they want no government," says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. His research found that many of them would support anti-poverty programs if focused broadly on job training and infrastructure investment.
.

This article is......stupid.
It contains an interminable amount of inaccuracies.
And its blatantly racist.

Right now-----right now on this thread is the perfect opportunity for you to prove what you say or-----or are you a Herman ("I don't have facts to back this up but...") Cain surrogate? Otherwise jump on top of the ever growing rightwing pigpile of name calling and factless whining.


If public-sector employment had grown since June 2009 by the average amount it grew in the three previous recoveries (2.8 percent) instead of shrinking by 2.5 percent, there would be 1.2 million more public-sector jobs in the U.S. economy today. In addition, these extra public-sector jobs would have helped preserve about 500,000 private-sector jobs.
.