Top Socialist Economist Says He’s Been Working With Democrats & Obama For A Long Time

[Jroc]

What I like is:
1. He is doing original research in a very important field, and breaking ground not only in his model and conclusions, but also in finding ways to get meaningful data from 150--200 year old tax records. His is making a methodological contribution that will allow others to develop methods that produce data otherwise unobtainable. It's a bit like the Rosetta Stone.
2. He writes well and has a good grasp of historical method. That's one of the three pillars of economic analysis.
3. He is making some links among previously unconnected theory and phenomena, principally the relationship between inequality in income and wealth, intergenerational transfer of wealth, and economic growth. This is where the big dividends should eventually be.
4. All of this has major applications for the formation of economic policy.

In short, it's good professional economic research and theory.

As to the model, some of it is in the book "Capital". Mine is on back order like everybody else's. From the book reviews I have a pretty good hunch the book covers maybe two-thirds of what he wants to cover, but the other third will take a couple of years to develop. I've speculated elsewhere on the board about what that missing part will turn out to be and I think he got caught at the end of last year wanting to integrate the Summers-Hansen debate into the work, but realized that would delay publication too long and bifurcated the work. It screams "Volume II coming".

The "big idea" hinges on an internal rate of return on capital (what Keynes called the "marginal efficiency of capital" and it relationship to the real growth rate (what Piketty labels "r-g"). This feeds into a marginal productivity theory of factor shares. I really need to see the math to say much more.

Or then I could have just had a bad bit of potato for dinner and am hallucinating. We'll see.

I can live without reading the economic theory of a socialist. There is no such thing as equality of outcome


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U[/ame]

So you choose to be willfully ignorant, sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "Na-na-na-na". You can't effectively argue against that which you refuse to read, so I guess we will hear no more from you on the subject.

I don't study Mises, Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, Schumpeter, and Friedman because I agree with everything they say. But if I want to be taken seriously in opposing them when they are wrong, I have to at least understand their argument.

Obviously you choose another course.

Ignorant?..Common sense and a little logic tells me that socialist economies don't work. No need to read all that crap, unless you enjoy it. I can find better ways to spend my time than reading socialist economic theory

 

[Jroc]

And you did. Fail, that is. Back to your bat shit crazy conservative web sites to reload, me boy.

For instance, here is one of your tag lines:
"Man is not free unless government is limited.Ronald Reagan "

But being a con tool, you do not actually follow the history of our economy. If you did, you would know that:
Reagan tripled the national debt
Reagan raised taxes 11 times
Reagan expanded the size of government

Funny.

Stupid talking points from a stupid person...You're not worth the time..."Koch brothers"..what an idiot

 

[Rshermr]

And you did. Fail, that is. Back to your bat shit crazy conservative web sites to reload, me boy.

For instance, here is one of your tag lines:
"Man is not free unless government is limited.Ronald Reagan "

But being a con tool, you do not actually follow the history of our economy. If you did, you would know that:
Reagan tripled the national debt
Reagan raised taxes 11 times
Reagan expanded the size of government

Funny.

Stupid talking points from a stupid person...You're not worth the time..."Koch brothers"..what an idiot

So, no comment to my post. Kind of killed your point, me boy. Sorry about that. But Reagan as a president creating limited government. That is, me boy, PRICELESS.

 

[f252863]

And you did. Fail, that is. Back to your bat shit crazy conservative web sites to reload, me boy.

For instance, here is one of your tag lines:
"Man is not free unless government is limited.Ronald Reagan "

But being a con tool, you do not actually follow the history of our economy. If you did, you would know that:
Reagan tripled the national debt
Reagan raised taxes 11 times
Reagan expanded the size of government

Funny.

Stupid talking points from a stupid person...You're not worth the time..."Koch brothers"..what an idiot

So, no comment to my post. Kind of killed your point, me boy. Sorry about that. But Reagan as a president creating limited government. That is, me boy, PRICELESS.

Very simplistic analysis here.

"Reagan raised taxes 11 times".

A great deal of information is missing from that sweeping generalization.

How many times did he lower taxes? Were taxes OVERALL lower under his administration?

I'd love to be your boss. I'm going to raise your salary 11 times and lower it only 3, ok?
I'll raise it by a penny 11 times and lower it by a dime 3 times.

 

[percysunshine]

Top Socialist Economist Says He’s Been Working With Democrats & Obama For A Long Time

Socialist and democrats one and the same


So ...this is news?

The Democrats are enacting the fascist policies of Mussolini...yet they are Socialists?

Actions are real...Name tags are subject to negotiation.

.

 

[f252863]

Top Socialist Economist Says He’s Been Working With Democrats & Obama For A Long Time

Socialist and democrats one and the same


So ...this is news?

The Democrats are enacting the fascist policies of Mussolini...yet they are Socialists?

Actions are real...Name tags are subject to negotiation.

.

Both fascism and socialism share the same attributes of state control over the private sector, they just differ in their methodology and scope.

 

[Rshermr]

Stupid talking points from a stupid person...You're not worth the time..."Koch brothers"..what an idiot

So, no comment to my post. Kind of killed your point, me boy. Sorry about that. But Reagan as a president creating limited government. That is, me boy, PRICELESS.

Very simplistic analysis here.

"Reagan raised taxes 11 times".

A great deal of information is missing from that sweeping generalization.

How many times did he lower taxes? Were taxes OVERALL lower under his administration?

I'd love to be your boss. I'm going to raise your salary 11 times and lower it only 3, ok?
I'll raise it by a penny 11 times and lower it by a dime 3 times.

Let's see if I can help you to understand. There is no question what amount Reagan lowered or raised taxes by. Never an issue, me boy. He lowered taxes by about 40%, more or less, than he raised taxes. Point is (now try to pay attention) what happened.
1. He took office with an ue rate or 7.4% in Jan, 1981.
2. Feb 1981 he lowered taxes a great deal, with a lot of fanfare. And much posturing.
3. The ue rate went from 7.4% to 10.8% by Nov 1982. Now, if you check, you would find that that is the second highest ue rate since the great depression of 1929. Nearly a point higher than during the great recession of 2008. Which, me boy, was a really, really bad deal. In addition, the deficit was going up FAST because people who do not work do not pay taxes. Make sense to you??? Try to concentrate, now.
4. By late 1981, the reagan economics team came to the conclusion that they had a BIG problem. They needed to do stimulative spending. Badly. So, they started raising taxes. And did so 11 times. But that is not the real point. The real point is that the team needed to push stimulative spending. Problem is, while raising taxes helped the deficit, the stimulative spending hurt (increased) the deficit. But, in truth, the net impact was GOOD. UE went down. The deficit decreased. All good stuff.

Now, you may want to run off to the bat shit crazy con web sites to find something to say. Because, so far, you are looking really, really ignorant.

 

[Rshermr]

Top Socialist Economist Says He’s Been Working With Democrats & Obama For A Long Time

Socialist and democrats one and the same


So ...this is news?

The Democrats are enacting the fascist policies of Mussolini...yet they are Socialists?

Actions are real...Name tags are subject to negotiation.

.

Both fascism and socialism share the same attributes of state control over the private sector, they just differ in their methodology and scope.

You may actually want to spend a little time reading the definitions of fascism and socialism. Jesus you are stupid.

 

[Jroc]

ECONOMY BEFORE REAGAN
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than Obama faced in 2009:


Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982.
Unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.
Roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).
Double digit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.
The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.
A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.
From 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.


REAGAN’S ECONOMIC SUCCESS
Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:


20 million new jobs were created.
Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
(The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
Economic growth averaged 7.1% over the first 7 quarters.

Reaganomics: The Success of President Reagan?s Economic Policies « FactReal

 

[Geaux4it]

Socialist and democrats one and the same

Have you ever wondered why the Obama Administration’s plans for improving the U.S. economy always seem to fall flat? It just might have something to do with the fact that the Obama Administration has been working with someone who doesn’t like capitalism.

According to an article on France24.com, a well known economist who isn’t fond of capitalism, but promotes Socialism, has been working with the Democrats and the Obama Administration “for a long time”:

In his latest book, French economist Thomas Piketty warns that modern-day capitalism leads to unsustainable levels of inequality. While he is often linked to France’s Socialist Party, his writings have made him unusually popular in the US.

Top Socialist Economist Says He?s Been Working With Democrats & Obama ?For A Long Time? | The Gateway Pundit

 

[editec]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491534656/ref=tmm_abk_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=]Capital in the Twenty-First Century: Thomas Piketty, Arthur Goldhammer: 9781491534656: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

The gist of Piketty's book is simple. Returns to capital are rising faster than economies are growing. The wealthy are getting wealthier while everybody else is struggling. Inequality will widen to the point where it becomes unsustainable – both politically and economically – unless action is taken to redistribute income and wealth. Piketty favours a graduated wealth tax and 80% income tax for those on the highest salaries.

Here's The Ecomist's take on the book

Capital” makes three big contributions in its 577 pages. First, Mr Piketty, a pioneer in using tax statistics to measure inequality, painstakingly documents the evolution of income and wealth over the past 300 years, particularly in Europe and America. In doing so, he shows that the period from about 1914 to the 1970s was an historical outlier in which both income inequality and the stock of wealth (relative to annual national income) fell dramatically. Since the 1970s both wealth and income gaps have been rising back towards their pre-20th-century norms.

Mr Piketty’s second contribution is to come up with a theory of capitalism that explains these facts and offers a prediction of where wealth distribution is heading. His central claim is that the free-market system has a natural tendency towards increasing the concentration of wealth, because the rate of return on property and investments has consistently been higher than the rate of economic growth. Two world wars, the Depression and high taxes pushed down the return on wealth in the 20th century, while rapid productivity and population rises pushed up growth. But without such countervailing factors, Mr Piketty argues, higher returns on capital will concentrate wealth—especially when, as now, an ageing population means that growth should slow.


That is where the problems start, because Mr Piketty’s third contribution is to offer policy proposals that assume this growing concentration of wealth is not only inevitable, but the thing that matters most. He prescribes a progressive global tax on capital (an annual levy that could start at 0.1% and hits a maximum of perhaps 10% on the greatest fortunes). He also suggests a punitive 80% tax rate on incomes above $500,000 or so.

Here “Capital” drifts to the left and loses credibility. Mr Piketty asserts rather than explains why tempering wealth concentration should be the priority (as opposed to, say, boosting growth). He barely acknowledges any trade-offs or costs to his redistributionist agenda. Most economists, common sense and a lot of French businesspeople would argue that higher taxes on income and wealth put off entrepreneurs and risk taking; he blithely dismisses that.

 

[Rshermr]

ECONOMY BEFORE REAGAN
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than Obama faced in 2009:


Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982.
Unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.
Roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).
Double digit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.
The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.
A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.
From 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.


REAGAN’S ECONOMIC SUCCESS
Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:


20 million new jobs were created.
Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
(The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
Economic growth averaged 7.1% over the first 7 quarters.

Reaganomics: The Success of President Reagan?s Economic Policies « FactReal

Your real problem, of course, is that you do not want to admit to the truth, and need to find a source who is devoted to rewriting the history of your hero, ronnie. And you, being a con tool, could care less about the truth.

Relative to the subject of this thread, cons are simply frightened to death by an economist getting as much attention as Piketty and do not want anyone to consider what he is saying. What their heroes are telling these weak minded trolls to do is stop the conversation. Because, of course, this is what will kill their propaganda supported by the hundreds of millions they spend to spread it. They simply do not want the subject discussed. And they are desperate to stop it.

Even in this post, you see the desperation. In general, the con tools will try to avoid the obviously partial sources, rather providing no source at all. But now, in desperation, you see their total lack of integrity.

 

[kiwiman127]

Socialist and democrats one and the same




Top Socialist Economist Says He?s Been Working With Democrats & Obama ?For A Long Time? | The Gateway Pundit

Another stupid post by another stupid con tool. Using a far right wing bat shit crazy source, the Gateway Pundit, for information. Information produced by (really, no kidding) a CLOWN. Jesus. An article in a con web site written by a clown. Finally, you have hit rock bottom.

ah no, this post of yours was rock bottom...you need a chill pill
I guess if it's not hufferpufferpost, thinkprogress, Salon, Washingtoncompost, cnn all dnc mouthpeices

Yep, some on both sides use strongly biased resources but then cry when the other side does it. In either case it's really bogus when posters use strongly partisan resources. Right off the bat it destroys their credibility, (except the goose-stepping comrades will accept such blatant BS).

 

[Jroc]

ECONOMY BEFORE REAGAN
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than Obama faced in 2009:


Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982.
Unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.
Roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).
Double digit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.
The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.
A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.
From 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.


REAGAN’S ECONOMIC SUCCESS
Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:


20 million new jobs were created.
Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
(The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
Economic growth averaged 7.1% over the first 7 quarters.

Reaganomics: The Success of President Reagan?s Economic Policies « FactReal

Your real problem, of course, is that you do not want to admit to the truth, and need to find a source who is devoted to rewriting the history of your hero, ronnie. And you, being a con tool, could care less about the truth.

Relative to the subject of this thread, cons are simply frightened to death by an economist getting as much attention as Piketty and do not want anyone to consider what he is saying. What their heroes are telling these weak minded trolls to do is stop the conversation. Because, of course, this is what will kill their propaganda supported by the hundreds of millions they spend to spread it. They simply do not want the subject discussed. And they are desperate to stop it.

Even in this post, you see the desperation. In general, the con tools will try to avoid the obviously partial sources, rather providing no source at all. But now, in desperation, you see their total lack of integrity.

Facts are a stubborn thing boy...Reaganomics helped the private sector create trillions in new wealth. People moved up the income scale and our country was the envy of the world again. Now? we have big government, socialist running the country and we are stagnated in the abyss of leftist economics. Its a sad day in America right now

 

[Rshermr]

Reaganomics: The Success of President Reagan?s Economic Policies « FactReal

Your real problem, of course, is that you do not want to admit to the truth, and need to find a source who is devoted to rewriting the history of your hero, ronnie. And you, being a con tool, could care less about the truth.

Relative to the subject of this thread, cons are simply frightened to death by an economist getting as much attention as Piketty and do not want anyone to consider what he is saying. What their heroes are telling these weak minded trolls to do is stop the conversation. Because, of course, this is what will kill their propaganda supported by the hundreds of millions they spend to spread it. They simply do not want the subject discussed. And they are desperate to stop it.

Even in this post, you see the desperation. In general, the con tools will try to avoid the obviously partial sources, rather providing no source at all. But now, in desperation, you see their total lack of integrity.

Facts are a stubborn thing boy...Reaganomics helped the private sector create trillions in new wealth. People moved up the income scale and our country was the envy of the world again. Now? we have big government, socialist running the country and we are stagnated in the abyss of leftist economics. Its a sad day in America right now

Funny how you use that bat shit crazy conservative site. Typical con lack of integrity.
Funny how you forgot a number of things, me boy. Here. Let me provide a bit of TRUTH.
In 1980 and 1981, when Reagan lowered taxes, we had a major recession. All on Ronnies presidency. His tax decrease did not work. It drove the ue rate to 10.8%.
Ronnies success came when he RAISED TAXES and used STIMULATIVE SPENDING to fix his mess. That is, 11 tax increases.
And, as opposed to what he said he would do, ronnie did not decrease the size of government. He INCREASED the size of government.
But the real test of how he did was in jobs created. You know, that statistic cons always use against Obama. Lets take a look, me lying con tool. And I will use an impartial source, not a source with an agenda like you use:
Carters term crated over 10.3M jobs, 10.3M average
Reagan's first term created over 5.3M jobs
Reagan's second term created over 10.7M Jobs, 8M average
George Bush I created 2.6M jobs, 2.6M jobs, 2,6M average
Clinton's first term created over 11.5M jobs HIGHEST TERM
Clinton's second term created over 11.2M jobs, 11.35M averageHIGHEST
George W's first term crated NO JOBS, lost 13!!!
George W's Second term created 1.2M Jobs, .6M average LOWEST
Obama first term created 1.2M jobs In first term, more jobs than W created in 2 terms.
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, in the analysis from your bat shit crazy con web site, they forgot to admit that the Carter economy was doing fairly well in the end though the ue rate was still over 7%, and that in that period you mentioned (1982 to 2007), there was a major downturn during the Bush 1 regime resulting from a tax decrease done by reagan on his way out. Same results as his first tax decrease, he simply let his vp deal with the mess. And it cost Bush his presidency.
And,of course, you really forgot the entire Clinton presidency, which was the most successful in our history. You may have also accidentaly forgotten that while Reagan increased the deficit, and ended with a record deficit as he trippled the national debt, it was Clinton who had the only SURPLUS in modern times. Clinton decreased the size of the national debt, eliminated the deficit left him by republican presidents, and has the all time record for jobs created.

Yup. Actual impartial data is a great thing, but it makes conservative tools look like what they are: dishonest. But the classic is George W, where con tools, in an effort to rewrite history, ignore that W oversaw the second largest downturn in the history of the US economy, the great republican recession of 2008 (which was, by the way, only beaten by the great republican depression of 1929.) Those repubs have a lot to crow about.

 

[Jroc]

Your real problem, of course, is that you do not want to admit to the truth, and need to find a source who is devoted to rewriting the history of your hero, ronnie. And you, being a con tool, could care less about the truth.

Relative to the subject of this thread, cons are simply frightened to death by an economist getting as much attention as Piketty and do not want anyone to consider what he is saying. What their heroes are telling these weak minded trolls to do is stop the conversation. Because, of course, this is what will kill their propaganda supported by the hundreds of millions they spend to spread it. They simply do not want the subject discussed. And they are desperate to stop it.

Even in this post, you see the desperation. In general, the con tools will try to avoid the obviously partial sources, rather providing no source at all. But now, in desperation, you see their total lack of integrity.

Facts are a stubborn thing boy...Reaganomics helped the private sector create trillions in new wealth. People moved up the income scale and our country was the envy of the world again. Now? we have big government, socialist running the country and we are stagnated in the abyss of leftist economics. Its a sad day in America right now

Funny how you use that bat shit crazy conservative site. Typical con lack of integrity.
Funny how you forgot a number of things, me boy. Here. Let me provide a bit of TRUTH.
In 1980 and 1981, when Reagan lowered taxes, we had a major recession. All on Ronnies presidency. His tax decrease did not work. It drove the ue rate to 10.8%.
Ronnies success came when he RAISED TAXES and used STIMULATIVE SPENDING to fix his mess. That is, 11 tax increases.
And, as opposed to what he said he would do, ronnie did not decrease the size of government. He INCREASED the size of government.
But the real test of how he did was in jobs created. You know, that statistic cons always use against Obama. Lets take a look, me lying con tool. And I will use an impartial source, not a source with an agenda like you use:
Carters term crated over 10.3M jobs, 10.3M average
Reagan's first term created over 5.3M jobs
Reagan's second term created over 10.7M Jobs, 8M average
George Bush I created 2.6M jobs, 2.6M jobs, 2,6M average
Clinton's first term created over 11.5M jobs HIGHEST TERM
Clinton's second term created over 11.2M jobs, 11.35M averageHIGHEST
George W's first term crated NO JOBS, lost 13!!!
George W's Second term created 1.2M Jobs, .6M average LOWEST
Obama first term created 1.2M jobs In first term, more jobs than W created in 2 terms.
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, in the analysis from your bat shit crazy con web site, they forgot to admit that the Carter economy was doing fairly well in the end though the ue rate was still over 7%, and that in that period you mentioned (1982 to 2007), there was a major downturn during the Bush 1 regime resulting from a tax decrease done by reagan on his way out. Same results as his first tax decrease, he simply let his vp deal with the mess. And it cost Bush his presidency.
And,of course, you really forgot the entire Clinton presidency, which was the most successful in our history. You may have also accidentaly forgotten that while Reagan increased the deficit, and ended with a record deficit as he trippled the national debt, it was Clinton who had the only SURPLUS in modern times. Clinton decreased the size of the national debt, eliminated the deficit left him by republican presidents, and has the all time record for jobs created.

Yup. Actual impartial data is a great thing, but it makes conservative tools look like what they are: dishonest. But the classic is George W, where con tools, in an effort to rewrite history, ignore that W oversaw the second largest downturn in the history of the US economy, the great republican recession of 2008 (which was, by the way, only beaten by the great republican depression of 1929.) Those repubs have a lot to crow about.

Stupid, liberal, talking points. And a bunch of bull. but what does that haft to do with the topic? Do you lurk these political sites waiting for a chance to spring your stupid, liberal, talking points on unsuspecting right wingers?

 

[Rshermr]

Facts are a stubborn thing boy...Reaganomics helped the private sector create trillions in new wealth. People moved up the income scale and our country was the envy of the world again. Now? we have big government, socialist running the country and we are stagnated in the abyss of leftist economics. Its a sad day in America right now

Funny how you use that bat shit crazy conservative site. Typical con lack of integrity.
Funny how you forgot a number of things, me boy. Here. Let me provide a bit of TRUTH.
In 1980 and 1981, when Reagan lowered taxes, we had a major recession. All on Ronnies presidency. His tax decrease did not work. It drove the ue rate to 10.8%.
Ronnies success came when he RAISED TAXES and used STIMULATIVE SPENDING to fix his mess. That is, 11 tax increases.
And, as opposed to what he said he would do, ronnie did not decrease the size of government. He INCREASED the size of government.
But the real test of how he did was in jobs created. You know, that statistic cons always use against Obama. Lets take a look, me lying con tool. And I will use an impartial source, not a source with an agenda like you use:
Carters term crated over 10.3M jobs, 10.3M average
Reagan's first term created over 5.3M jobs
Reagan's second term created over 10.7M Jobs, 8M average
George Bush I created 2.6M jobs, 2.6M jobs, 2,6M average
Clinton's first term created over 11.5M jobs HIGHEST TERM
Clinton's second term created over 11.2M jobs, 11.35M averageHIGHEST
George W's first term crated NO JOBS, lost 13!!!
George W's Second term created 1.2M Jobs, .6M average LOWEST
Obama first term created 1.2M jobs In first term, more jobs than W created in 2 terms.
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, in the analysis from your bat shit crazy con web site, they forgot to admit that the Carter economy was doing fairly well in the end though the ue rate was still over 7%, and that in that period you mentioned (1982 to 2007), there was a major downturn during the Bush 1 regime resulting from a tax decrease done by reagan on his way out. Same results as his first tax decrease, he simply let his vp deal with the mess. And it cost Bush his presidency.
And,of course, you really forgot the entire Clinton presidency, which was the most successful in our history. You may have also accidentaly forgotten that while Reagan increased the deficit, and ended with a record deficit as he trippled the national debt, it was Clinton who had the only SURPLUS in modern times. Clinton decreased the size of the national debt, eliminated the deficit left him by republican presidents, and has the all time record for jobs created.

Yup. Actual impartial data is a great thing, but it makes conservative tools look like what they are: dishonest. But the classic is George W, where con tools, in an effort to rewrite history, ignore that W oversaw the second largest downturn in the history of the US economy, the great republican recession of 2008 (which was, by the way, only beaten by the great republican depression of 1929.) Those repubs have a lot to crow about.

Stupid, liberal, talking points. And a bunch of bull. but what does that haft to do with the topic? Do you lurk these political sites waiting for a chance to spring your stupid, liberal, talking points on unsuspecting right wingers?

No, no, no JROC. Talking point memos are done for conservatives. That being because they need to be told where to go and what to believe. The rest of us have no directions. We just have facts. Back to your bat shit crazy con web site, jroc. For your daily directions.

 

[Jroc]

Funny how you use that bat shit crazy conservative site. Typical con lack of integrity.
Funny how you forgot a number of things, me boy. Here. Let me provide a bit of TRUTH.
In 1980 and 1981, when Reagan lowered taxes, we had a major recession. All on Ronnies presidency. His tax decrease did not work. It drove the ue rate to 10.8%.
Ronnies success came when he RAISED TAXES and used STIMULATIVE SPENDING to fix his mess. That is, 11 tax increases.
And, as opposed to what he said he would do, ronnie did not decrease the size of government. He INCREASED the size of government.
But the real test of how he did was in jobs created. You know, that statistic cons always use against Obama. Lets take a look, me lying con tool. And I will use an impartial source, not a source with an agenda like you use:
Carters term crated over 10.3M jobs, 10.3M average
Reagan's first term created over 5.3M jobs
Reagan's second term created over 10.7M Jobs, 8M average
George Bush I created 2.6M jobs, 2.6M jobs, 2,6M average
Clinton's first term created over 11.5M jobs HIGHEST TERM
Clinton's second term created over 11.2M jobs, 11.35M averageHIGHEST
George W's first term crated NO JOBS, lost 13!!!
George W's Second term created 1.2M Jobs, .6M average LOWEST
Obama first term created 1.2M jobs In first term, more jobs than W created in 2 terms.
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, in the analysis from your bat shit crazy con web site, they forgot to admit that the Carter economy was doing fairly well in the end though the ue rate was still over 7%, and that in that period you mentioned (1982 to 2007), there was a major downturn during the Bush 1 regime resulting from a tax decrease done by reagan on his way out. Same results as his first tax decrease, he simply let his vp deal with the mess. And it cost Bush his presidency.
And,of course, you really forgot the entire Clinton presidency, which was the most successful in our history. You may have also accidentaly forgotten that while Reagan increased the deficit, and ended with a record deficit as he trippled the national debt, it was Clinton who had the only SURPLUS in modern times. Clinton decreased the size of the national debt, eliminated the deficit left him by republican presidents, and has the all time record for jobs created.

Yup. Actual impartial data is a great thing, but it makes conservative tools look like what they are: dishonest. But the classic is George W, where con tools, in an effort to rewrite history, ignore that W oversaw the second largest downturn in the history of the US economy, the great republican recession of 2008 (which was, by the way, only beaten by the great republican depression of 1929.) Those repubs have a lot to crow about.

Stupid, liberal, talking points. And a bunch of bull. but what does that haft to do with the topic? Do you lurk these political sites waiting for a chance to spring your stupid, liberal, talking points on unsuspecting right wingers?

No, no, no JROC. Talking point memos are done for conservatives. That being because they need to be told where to go and what to believe. The rest of us have no directions. We just have facts. Back to your bat shit crazy con web site, jroc. For your daily directions.

Yep it's the "Koch brothers" they put out the talking points

 

[Rshermr]

Stupid, liberal, talking points. And a bunch of bull. but what does that haft to do with the topic? Do you lurk these political sites waiting for a chance to spring your stupid, liberal, talking points on unsuspecting right wingers?

No, no, no JROC. Talking point memos are done for conservatives. That being because they need to be told where to go and what to believe. The rest of us have no directions. We just have facts. Back to your bat shit crazy con web site, jroc. For your daily directions.

Yep it's the "Koch brothers" they put out the talking points

Of course not, me poor ignorant tool. The Koch brothers just participate in paying for the talking points.