Which Side Is Looking Out For You...

[Andylusion]

You misunderstand the issue.

Your job is to decide which party is better for the American public, not whether government meets all of your desires.


This may help:



a. the Democrats favor open borders and illegal immigration....Obama told illegals to go and vote.....is any of this a benefit to Americans?

b. Trump has reduced the burden of regulations....does this benefit Americans?

c. Trump is trying to stymie the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism from getting the nuclear weapons that the Democrats guaranteed them....does this benefit Americans?

d. Tax cuts are part of the Right's agenda.....does this benefit Americans?

e. The Democrats are running on anti-white bias.....does dividing the country based on skin color benefit Americans?



And, of course, Maher is correct...
"Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats"
Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats | RealClearPolitics





There's an old saying that applies:
'Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good'

There is no difference between parties because the same people own both of them

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Funny, given it sure seems like they are very different.

It matters not because the same interests own both parties.

The joke's on you

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

A Breitbart opinion piece masquerading as journalism where you (and other posters) are asserting Krugman said and meant something he didn't and another piece (although admirable) that doesn't mention the word "Democrat" once.

Do aspire to be anything other than the alt-right bottom feeder you are?

They did quite a job on you in government school, huh?



Just between the two of us, aren't you a wee bit ashamed to have buckled under so easily?

I paid my way through college just fine with no help from the government..or my state. Ashamed? Actually, in my limited interactions with your posts, it looks like I have you on the run. I'm actually quite pleased with myself.

LOL....

The vision of you, that you just portrayed on here, is of a 13-year-old boy standing naked in front of a mirror, looking down and saying.... "I'm actually quite pleased with myself."

Hey, if that image puts the wind in your sails, leave me out of it. Just pointing out that all her responses are pretty toothless.

“Economists, myself included, often make a point of saying that the stock market is not the economy, which it isn’t. It *is,” however, pretty much the Trump presidency,” Krugman tweeted. “Take away his magic talisman and there’s nothing left.”

Ok, here's your chance.

Yes or no: Did Krugman say that?

If yes, then explain what his point was in saying it. No point at all? Just random babblings without purpose? Or was he once again, injected political goals into a loaded statement?

I can read just fine. And I'm looking straight at it. Please point out EXACTLY where he takes pleasure in the market tanking?..or even implies it.

He speaking about Trump's reliance on the market to bolster his presidency. You are reading something into his statement that isn't there..no matter how much you'd like it to be.

 

[Yarddog]

....or, to put it another way, which side is looking out for its own power and interests above the interests of the American people?


While the right, under this President, has benefited the people in a multitude of ways, the Democrats, the Left, wishes for the collapse of the economy so it will benefit their return to power.

Watch Bill Maher Two Years Ago Say We Want To Crash the Economy
By Mark SimoneMar 15, 2020

Is this all part of a vast left wing conspiracy to crash the economy? Bill Maher said in 2018 that he is "hoping" for the bottom to fall out of the economy and for the country to enter a recession so we can "get rid of Trump." He said one way to do that is a "crashing economy." Maher said he is "sorry" if it hurts people, but rooting for a recession is a prevention measure to losing democracy.

There's only one person looking out for me

Not even mommy???????

Well hell you got me there! but as fate would have it she has worked for Geico for years, so sometimes it's hard
to know if it's personal or just business.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....or, to put it another way, which side is looking out for its own power and interests above the interests of the American people?


While the right, under this President, has benefited the people in a multitude of ways, the Democrats, the Left, wishes for the collapse of the economy so it will benefit their return to power.

Watch Bill Maher Two Years Ago Say We Want To Crash the Economy
By Mark SimoneMar 15, 2020

Is this all part of a vast left wing conspiracy to crash the economy? Bill Maher said in 2018 that he is "hoping" for the bottom to fall out of the economy and for the country to enter a recession so we can "get rid of Trump." He said one way to do that is a "crashing economy." Maher said he is "sorry" if it hurts people, but rooting for a recession is a prevention measure to losing democracy.

There's only one person looking out for me

Not even mommy???????

Well hell you got me there! but as fate would have it she has worked for Geico for years, so sometimes it's hard
to know if it's personal or just business.

Aha!

Now I understand the Geico guy in the pic......kind of a family friend.

 

[alang1216]

My point is I don't care what Maher said. He's a comedian. If you are getting your political opinions from or getting twisted up and around in knots by comedians, then as my dad used to say, "you got issues, kid".

Let's take a gigantic leap of faith, and try to believe that education, logic, and experience actually have some bearing on your geopolitical outlook....so far not in evidence.
But...being the eternal optimist.....I'll offer you an education.

a. the Democrats favor open borders and illegal immigration....Obama told illegals to go and vote.....is any of this a benefit to Americans?

b. Trump has reduced the burden of regulations....does this benefit Americans?

c. Trump is trying to stymie the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism from getting the nuclear weapons that the Democrats guaranteed them....does this benefit Americans?

d. Tax cuts are part of the Right's agenda.....does this benefit Americans?

e. The Democrats are running on anti-white bias.....does dividing the country based on skin color benefit Americans?



And, of course, Maher is correct...
"Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats"
Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats | RealClearPolitics



I am for benefiting Americans.

It is clear and evident that it is the Right that does so.

a. Obama did not tell illegals to vote. He said that if you vote then it is because you are a citizen. This was in response to fears Republicans would try to intimidate Hispanic voters. Voters disapprove of Trump's border and immigration policies. They approve of DACA, oppose walls and support amnesty.

b. Trump made it easier for companies to pollute the air, water and destroy wildlife habitats. Made it easier for companies to cheat their customers. Allow misleading advertising.

c. The fact is that many people including military leaders disagreed with Trump's decision.

d. Tax cuts for the rich and powerful do not benefit ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans largely opposed the tax cuts. The reason is simple. Most people do not pay enough in taxes for it to matter.

e. Republicans are dividing Americans. White supremacists run the Republican Party.

"a. Obama did not tell illegals to vote. "

Here he is doing just that.


She says 'I' after making clear that she is speaking for illegal aliens.









Transcript:



RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting.

[And that is who she is speaking for!]

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
[Who would come for legal citizens voting?????????]
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

[Just like you.....a bald-faced liar!]

And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.

[Meaning: 'Go ahead and vote....no one will be the wiser!']



The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

[Meaning, I guess....if you are living with lots of other illegals...well, heck, at least some of you should go vote! After all....Trump is trying to get rid of you illegals!]

Obama encouraged Latino citizens to vote. Your spin is malarkey.

He told illegals, the folks the interviewer said she spoke for, to vote.


It's right in the vid.

An unscripted remark, that is all you have to misinterpret. Did Obama ever give a speech where he told illegals to vote? I thought not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's take a gigantic leap of faith, and try to believe that education, logic, and experience actually have some bearing on your geopolitical outlook....so far not in evidence.
But...being the eternal optimist.....I'll offer you an education.

a. the Democrats favor open borders and illegal immigration....Obama told illegals to go and vote.....is any of this a benefit to Americans?

b. Trump has reduced the burden of regulations....does this benefit Americans?

c. Trump is trying to stymie the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism from getting the nuclear weapons that the Democrats guaranteed them....does this benefit Americans?

d. Tax cuts are part of the Right's agenda.....does this benefit Americans?

e. The Democrats are running on anti-white bias.....does dividing the country based on skin color benefit Americans?



And, of course, Maher is correct...
"Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats"
Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats | RealClearPolitics



I am for benefiting Americans.

It is clear and evident that it is the Right that does so.

a. Obama did not tell illegals to vote. He said that if you vote then it is because you are a citizen. This was in response to fears Republicans would try to intimidate Hispanic voters. Voters disapprove of Trump's border and immigration policies. They approve of DACA, oppose walls and support amnesty.

b. Trump made it easier for companies to pollute the air, water and destroy wildlife habitats. Made it easier for companies to cheat their customers. Allow misleading advertising.

c. The fact is that many people including military leaders disagreed with Trump's decision.

d. Tax cuts for the rich and powerful do not benefit ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans largely opposed the tax cuts. The reason is simple. Most people do not pay enough in taxes for it to matter.

e. Republicans are dividing Americans. White supremacists run the Republican Party.

"a. Obama did not tell illegals to vote. "

Here he is doing just that.


She says 'I' after making clear that she is speaking for illegal aliens.









Transcript:



RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting.

[And that is who she is speaking for!]

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
[Who would come for legal citizens voting?????????]
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

[Just like you.....a bald-faced liar!]

And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.

[Meaning: 'Go ahead and vote....no one will be the wiser!']



The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

[Meaning, I guess....if you are living with lots of other illegals...well, heck, at least some of you should go vote! After all....Trump is trying to get rid of you illegals!]

Obama encouraged Latino citizens to vote. Your spin is malarkey.

He told illegals, the folks the interviewer said she spoke for, to vote.


It's right in the vid.

An unscripted remark, that is all you have to misinterpret. Did Obama ever give a speech where he told illegals to vote? I thought not.

Obama enticed illegals to come to America for one purpose only....to vote.

“Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program for Illegal Aliens” Judicial Watch Uncovers USDA Records Sponsoring U.S. Food Stamp Program for Illegal Aliens - Judicial Watch



Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally

A Spanish-language leaflet that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided to the Mexican Embassy in Washington advises border-crossing Mexicans that they can collect taxpayer-funded food stamp benefits for their children without admitting that they're illegal immigrants.

Underlined and in boldface type, the document tells immigrants who are unlawfully in the United States that, 'You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.'
Read more: Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



"Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico"
Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico - Breitbart







"Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally."
Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally | Daily Mail Online



Can you really be this ignorant, yet imagine (I almost said 'think') you can post on the subject????


So you're a government school grad, huh?

 

[Blues Man]

There is no difference between parties because the same people own both of them

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Funny, given it sure seems like they are very different.

It matters not because the same interests own both parties.

The joke's on you

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[PoliticalChic]

Funny, given it sure seems like they are very different.

It matters not because the same interests own both parties.

The joke's on you

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

 

[Blues Man]

It matters not because the same interests own both parties.

The joke's on you

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

No person who calls himself a "small government" person expands the size and cost of the government as much as Ronnie did.

And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that

He perpetuated the lie that the soviets had more nuclear weapons than we did and idiots like you believed it

We are not "safer" for being constantly involved in undeclared wars all over the world only a kool-aid drinking idiot thinks that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[PoliticalChic]

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

No person who calls himself a "small government" person expands the size and cost of the government as much as Ronnie did.

And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that

He perpetuated the lie that the soviets had more nuclear weapons than we did and idiots like you believed it

We are not "safer" for being constantly involved in undeclared wars all over the world only a kool-aid drinking idiot thinks that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I hope you recognize
a. that everything in my post is 100% accurate, correct and true

and

b. everything Reagan did.....not even counting ending the Soviet threat, was necessary after Carter.


Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

No person who calls himself a "small government" person expands the size and cost of the government as much as Ronnie did.

And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that

He perpetuated the lie that the soviets had more nuclear weapons than we did and idiots like you believed it

We are not "safer" for being constantly involved in undeclared wars all over the world only a kool-aid drinking idiot thinks that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

"And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that"


I see I'm trying to educate a total moron.

I'll keep trying...




"Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."

The American economy was also made from sterner stuff than Gorbachev's collapsing command economy. After the faux prosperity of the 1970s, fueled by skyrocketing oil prices and infusions of Western loans, the Soviet economy went into a terminal tail spin while its U.S. counterpart turned on its afterburners…The supply-siders were upset by the heavy government spending, the Left by the government's retraction from the economy through deregulation. Miraculously, growth returned after the stagnation of the 1970s while inflation did not.

How could the Soviet Union keep up, now that its European missile gambit had failed while Reagan's "Star Wars" strategy threatened to devalue its last superpower badge: a bloated arsenal of intercontinental nuclear weapons? Note that there is no straight causal line between SDI and the Soviet Union's self-dissolution. Reagan did not go for Edward Teller's illusionary claims about "Star Wars" because he wanted to use SDI as the final nail in the Soviet coffin. For Reagan, SDI spelled out the promise of transcendence, if not salvation. A nuclear abolitionist at heart, he believed truly that the missile shield would render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." The idea was not to dispatch the Soviet Union, but to liberate both superpowers from a death-dealing curse. Nor is there any conclusive evidence in the Politburo record, as available today, that would confirm the SDI-as-empire-killer theory so beloved by Reagan boosters.

Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders. "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"

When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'

FindArticles.com | CBSi


The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan

 

[Blues Man]

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

No person who calls himself a "small government" person expands the size and cost of the government as much as Ronnie did.

And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that

He perpetuated the lie that the soviets had more nuclear weapons than we did and idiots like you believed it

We are not "safer" for being constantly involved in undeclared wars all over the world only a kool-aid drinking idiot thinks that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I hope you recognize
a. that everything in my post is 100% accurate, correct and true

and

b. everything Reagan did.....not even counting ending the Soviet threat, was necessary after Carter.


Wise up.

And so is what i said

Let's not forget Ronnie's role in the savings and loan crisis, the fact that he illegally sold arms to his so called freedom fighters who were nothing but murderers. Supported brutal dictators, supplied weapons to both Iraq and Iran and had one of the most scandal ridden presidencies in history

The guy was a befuddled moron

 

[Blues Man]

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

No person who calls himself a "small government" person expands the size and cost of the government as much as Ronnie did.

And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that

He perpetuated the lie that the soviets had more nuclear weapons than we did and idiots like you believed it

We are not "safer" for being constantly involved in undeclared wars all over the world only a kool-aid drinking idiot thinks that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

"And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that"


I see I'm trying to educate a total moron.

I'll keep trying...




"Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."

The American economy was also made from sterner stuff than Gorbachev's collapsing command economy. After the faux prosperity of the 1970s, fueled by skyrocketing oil prices and infusions of Western loans, the Soviet economy went into a terminal tail spin while its U.S. counterpart turned on its afterburners…The supply-siders were upset by the heavy government spending, the Left by the government's retraction from the economy through deregulation. Miraculously, growth returned after the stagnation of the 1970s while inflation did not.

How could the Soviet Union keep up, now that its European missile gambit had failed while Reagan's "Star Wars" strategy threatened to devalue its last superpower badge: a bloated arsenal of intercontinental nuclear weapons? Note that there is no straight causal line between SDI and the Soviet Union's self-dissolution. Reagan did not go for Edward Teller's illusionary claims about "Star Wars" because he wanted to use SDI as the final nail in the Soviet coffin. For Reagan, SDI spelled out the promise of transcendence, if not salvation. A nuclear abolitionist at heart, he believed truly that the missile shield would render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." The idea was not to dispatch the Soviet Union, but to liberate both superpowers from a death-dealing curse. Nor is there any conclusive evidence in the Politburo record, as available today, that would confirm the SDI-as-empire-killer theory so beloved by Reagan boosters.

Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders. "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"

When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'

FindArticles.com | CBSi


The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan

What flavor kool aid is your favorite

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

It matters not because the same interests own both parties.

The joke's on you

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

Sorry there bunky, but he's right on the money. And I find it amusing that you link an article from Steve Forbes that was published right smack in the middle of the results of your hero Reagan's short sighted policies. Granted, other factors went into the dive but Ronny deserves a lot of the blame. Want a refresher?

The Great Recession of 2008: What Happened, and When?

 

[Blues Man]

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

Sorry there bunky, but he's right on the money. And I find it amusing that you link an article from Steve Forbes that was published right smack in the middle of the results of your hero Reagan's short sighted policies. Granted, other factors went into the dive but Ronny deserves a lot of the blame. Want a refresher?

The Great Recession of 2008: What Happened, and When?

Not to mention that even though everyone says Reagan cut taxes he really didn't he clawed back almost all that tax revenue by raising taxes 11 times in his tenure one of those being the largest tax hike in history at the time

 

[initforme]

You people can argue all you want but right now it's time to step u and give cash to the hardest working most productive workforce in the world. 1000 a person is a start because things are deteriorating daily.

 

[Blues Man]

You people can argue all you want but right now it's time to step u and give cash to the hardest working most productive workforce in the world. 1000 a person is a start because things are deteriorating daily.

1000 dollars is a pittance and will do little to help anyone

Once again the fucking government is offering lip service and you people are all unzipping your pants

We all know who will get most of the money and it ain't going to be the people who need it most

 

[initforme]

I don't really need it but considering how ungodly hard americans work I just want them to get some help. I guess I should apologize for this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

No person who calls himself a "small government" person expands the size and cost of the government as much as Ronnie did.

And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that

He perpetuated the lie that the soviets had more nuclear weapons than we did and idiots like you believed it

We are not "safer" for being constantly involved in undeclared wars all over the world only a kool-aid drinking idiot thinks that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

"And he had a great chance to make the country and indeed the world safer by agreeing to drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons but his masters did not want that"


I see I'm trying to educate a total moron.

I'll keep trying...




"Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."

The American economy was also made from sterner stuff than Gorbachev's collapsing command economy. After the faux prosperity of the 1970s, fueled by skyrocketing oil prices and infusions of Western loans, the Soviet economy went into a terminal tail spin while its U.S. counterpart turned on its afterburners…The supply-siders were upset by the heavy government spending, the Left by the government's retraction from the economy through deregulation. Miraculously, growth returned after the stagnation of the 1970s while inflation did not.

How could the Soviet Union keep up, now that its European missile gambit had failed while Reagan's "Star Wars" strategy threatened to devalue its last superpower badge: a bloated arsenal of intercontinental nuclear weapons? Note that there is no straight causal line between SDI and the Soviet Union's self-dissolution. Reagan did not go for Edward Teller's illusionary claims about "Star Wars" because he wanted to use SDI as the final nail in the Soviet coffin. For Reagan, SDI spelled out the promise of transcendence, if not salvation. A nuclear abolitionist at heart, he believed truly that the missile shield would render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." The idea was not to dispatch the Soviet Union, but to liberate both superpowers from a death-dealing curse. Nor is there any conclusive evidence in the Politburo record, as available today, that would confirm the SDI-as-empire-killer theory so beloved by Reagan boosters.

Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders. "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"

When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'

FindArticles.com | CBSi


The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan

What flavor kool aid is your favorite

Education.

Try it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And yet I can see clear policy differences between the parties routinely...

Let me ask you this, as a simple illustration....

Yes or no: The corporate income tax would have been lowered if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

If the answer is "no".... *pop* there went your theory.

Policy differences really?

What are the actual differences in RESULTS ?

Reagan said he was a small government guy but he wasn't

Bill Clinton did more to militarize the police than anyone else

Every president no matter what the party has continued to feed the military industrial complex and keep us involved in foreign wars

you have to stop listening to what politicians say and actually observe what they do

If you read the memoirs of Ronald Reagan, he routinely complained that congress was over spending, and openly thwarting his attempts to reduce the size of government.

You can look up Reagan's proposed budgets, and see that congress over-spent. They year over year, spent more than Reagan proposed.

Bill Clinton did do more to militarize the police, that's true.

I'm not as concerned about the military industrial complex, as you seem to be. Roughly speaking, all military spending combined, which includes VA spending, is only about 15% of the national budget. The other 85% is nearly all entitlements.

And while you scream about that 15% of the budget, this is the budget that ensures the safety and security of the nation as a whole.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that there are still large differences between the parties.

More Reagan bullshit

How many spending bills did he veto?

How many extremely expensive projects did he sign off on.?

The debt does not increase as much as it did under Reagan without the president being complicit

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Spoken like a prize government school dunce....er, grad.
You really don't know anything, do you.


“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
4. The benefits from Reaganomics:
   1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva


George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

Sorry there bunky, but he's right on the money. And I find it amusing that you link an article from Steve Forbes that was published right smack in the middle of the results of your hero Reagan's short sighted policies. Granted, other factors went into the dive but Ronny deserves a lot of the blame. Want a refresher?

The Great Recession of 2008: What Happened, and When?

You agree with him proves me 100% correct....you being a moron.