Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[francoHFW]

OP- Balderdash BS, for dupes only. Could we possibly tax the greedy idiot racist GOP rich and giant corps their fair share so we could do something for the ruined nonrich and and our pathetic infrastructure for the first time in 35 years?

The rich already pay the lions share of the taxes and more than their fair share. FACT!

Only in dupe world, dupe.

That's pathetic. And why they basically get all the new wealth and you dupes feel sick...

The top 10% pay 61% of the taxes you moron, its on your own chart.

No they pay 19.7%, 20.6, and 21.1%. of their income in fed taxes. It's basically a flat tax for everyone who makes money if you count all taxes. All from the top 3 quintiles pay about 29%, with many in the middle class paying more %wise than the very richest. Sad. And a GOP joke on you dupes.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Balderdash BS, for dupes only. Could we possibly tax the greedy idiot racist GOP rich and giant corps their fair share so we could do something for the ruined nonrich and and our pathetic infrastructure for the first time in 35 years?

The rich already pay the lions share of the taxes and more than their fair share. FACT!

DUHHHHH. Dupe.
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

I earn several hundred thousand, what exactly is the problem?

The rest of us. What are you, a drug dealer? lol

 

[francoHFW]

What have Republicans ever done to help poor neighborhoods?

Imagine that
If they are so poor, it would seem easy for Republicans to offer something better

Why don't they?

when the dems control the city it's impossible for republicans to make any changes. Here in New Orleans our stupid mayor and council are more interested in removing historical statues than in doing anything about crime or poverty. But they do have measures in place to raise taxes----------on the poor who have no way to pay them.

City governments have no effect whatsoever on poverty within their boundaries. City policies don't create jobs. Cities governments get the most blame for conditions not of their making, and have fewer resources to deal with the problems. When the steel industry left Pittsburg, whose fault was that? When the auto industry left Detroit, was the local government at fault?

It's a chicken and egg question. Which came first - the poverty, or the democratic government. In every case, it's the poverty. Cities don't become poor because the vote Democrat - they vote Democrat because Republicans do NOTHING for poor people.

That is not to say that poor people want free stuff, what they want is opportunities, just like everyone else, and Republicans don't offer opportunity at all. In fact, Republican policies make it harder and harder for people to work themselves out of poverty.

Conservatives hate "affirmative action" programs which see less qualified students of color gain admittance to Ivy League universities ahead of more qualified white students. They say this is wrong and everyone should be admitted on their merits. Really? They why do they support "legacy" admittance?

Undeserving and less qualifed sons and daughters of graduates of these fine institutions go to the front of the admittance line. Do you think that George W. Bush would have gotten into Harvard or Yale with his C average if his Daddy hadn't been Speaker of the House? If you do, then I have a ski resort in Miami I'd like to sell you.

Liberal cities are America's success story - from the revival of New York, to Los Angeles and Seattle, these are the engines which drive the US economy, with innovation, drive, and left wing policies. Not all are as successful, but compared to the Red States, the Blue Cities are in much, much better shape both economically and socially.

Yep...every city should strive for literacy rates equal to the NYC school system.

Shocker: 80% of NYC graduates unable to read

They probably can read chinese and spanish better- irrellevant...GOP national policy the last 35 years has been killing the nonrich and our infrastructure, and inner cities suffer the worst DUHHH.

 

[Muhammed]

With how fast the middle class is shrinking you should be concerned for everyone. I don't hear real answers from either party.

what??? Republicans want to eliminate taxes regulations unions illegals to bring back 40 million jobs that liberals offshored. Now do you understand?

Unions create middle class jobs.

 

[Markle]

You say our economy is dead in the water

Yes, the economy has been dead for the past eight years.

 

[Markle]

Really? What president ever handled recession while dealing with 2 wars?

Which, petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama made dangerously worse.

 

[Markle]

Do you agree there is more than enough wealth to go around.

It doesn't go around like the green bean casserole on Thanksgiving. The wealth expands. My making $250,000 a year takes nothing from you.

 

[Markle]

Doesn't Costco do what you say is impossible?

Costco Will Raise Minimum Wage as Competition for Workers Grows

As does Walmart and any other business which needs more employees. Nothing left for the government to do.

 

[Markle]

That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.

He had an out of control cold war and the infamous economy of President Carter. YOU don't remember 14% inflation and 18+% 30-year mortgage rates but I do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, fair enough, how do you improve it?

How do you influence companies to overpay workers that their consumers will not support? How do you provide good paying jobs where such costs gets transferred to the product or service that will steer customers away from your company to lower priced services or goods?

Companies can provide three things to the public: good paying jobs, good investment opportunities, and low cost products or services. You can have one or two, but not all three. It's just impossible to provide.

So we as a society decided that our priorities are low cost products and services, and good investment opportunities secondary. Good paying monkey jobs are last on the list. So how does one go about changing that?

Good questions. Just to begin. Do you agree there is more than enough wealth to go around. I have seen no reason to believe there isn't.

Wealth doesn't "go around" wealth is created.

Diseases go around, rumors go around, gossip goes around, but not wealth.

The problem we have in this country is many wait for others to create wealth and give their earnings to them. Is it not better to teach people to create wealth for themselves instead of hoping others will give them their wealth?

Who complains the most about lack of wealth? Those who have never invested their own money to create wealth.

Companies make outrageous profits! Okay, so why not buy stocks in those companies and share in those profits?

CEO"s are overpaid! Okay, then why not become a CEO yourself and get overpaid?

We can create better jobs! Okay, so start your own company and create those jobs you speak of!

Companies try to get the cheapest labor they can. Okay, but don't you do the very same? If you get three estimates for lawn care of your home, do you not choose the cheapest company? If you need the transmission rebuilt on your car, do you not choose the cheapest garage to rebuild it? If you want to put an addition on your home, don't you choose the cheapest construction company to do the job?

You didn't really answer the question. Do companies still generate enough profit to pay well?

Companies do not rely on gross profit. Companies rely on investments.

For you to understand this better, let's say you ran into a small fortune: A lottery winning, a relative that passed away, a lawsuit.

In any case, you end up (after taxes) with about 400K. Now your house is paid for, your car is paid for you have no outstanding debts. So what do you do with this 400K if you were smart? You invest it.

So you address a reputable investment company and have them do research on making your money grow. You don't want anything too aggressive, you want a conservative lower risk growth, and your company presents two options:

Company A has been around for a long time. Their growth rate is 5.5% per year. Company B is very similar, but they only have a 3.5% growth. Which company will you invest your new money in?

Before you make your final decision, I have to tell you that company A has a gross profit of 1.5 million a year. Company B has a gross profit of 2 billion a year. Does that make any difference to you when choosing who to invest your money with?

Of course not. You could care less what a company makes every year, you only care about how your money is going to grow. So if company A announces they are going to pay their employees more than their labor is worth, and that reduces their investment growth, would you still invest in their company?

I didn't think so, because nobody would.

You have quite the way of avoiding answering the question.

United States Corporate Profits | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

I avoided nothing. I'm trying to explain to you how company profits have nothing to do with employee pay, but you wish to stay in your own world believing otherwise.

You on the left have this belief that companies look at this pile of money and then try to figure how to divide it up. Business doesn't work that way. An employee is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same quality of work.

If you sweep floors for a living and make ten bucks an hour, you are only worth ten bucks an hour whether your company grosses one million a year or one hundred million a year. It doesn't matter how much they make. You're still only worth ten bucks an hour.

 

[Brain357]

That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.

He had an out of control cold war and the infamous economy of President Carter. YOU don't remember 14% inflation and 18+% 30-year mortgage rates but I do.

The Cold War isn't a real war. How many died? The soviets defeated themselves, communism does not work.

 

[Brain357]

Good questions. Just to begin. Do you agree there is more than enough wealth to go around. I have seen no reason to believe there isn't.

Wealth doesn't "go around" wealth is created.

Diseases go around, rumors go around, gossip goes around, but not wealth.

The problem we have in this country is many wait for others to create wealth and give their earnings to them. Is it not better to teach people to create wealth for themselves instead of hoping others will give them their wealth?

Who complains the most about lack of wealth? Those who have never invested their own money to create wealth.

Companies make outrageous profits! Okay, so why not buy stocks in those companies and share in those profits?

CEO"s are overpaid! Okay, then why not become a CEO yourself and get overpaid?

We can create better jobs! Okay, so start your own company and create those jobs you speak of!

Companies try to get the cheapest labor they can. Okay, but don't you do the very same? If you get three estimates for lawn care of your home, do you not choose the cheapest company? If you need the transmission rebuilt on your car, do you not choose the cheapest garage to rebuild it? If you want to put an addition on your home, don't you choose the cheapest construction company to do the job?

You didn't really answer the question. Do companies still generate enough profit to pay well?

Companies do not rely on gross profit. Companies rely on investments.

For you to understand this better, let's say you ran into a small fortune: A lottery winning, a relative that passed away, a lawsuit.

In any case, you end up (after taxes) with about 400K. Now your house is paid for, your car is paid for you have no outstanding debts. So what do you do with this 400K if you were smart? You invest it.

So you address a reputable investment company and have them do research on making your money grow. You don't want anything too aggressive, you want a conservative lower risk growth, and your company presents two options:

Company A has been around for a long time. Their growth rate is 5.5% per year. Company B is very similar, but they only have a 3.5% growth. Which company will you invest your new money in?

Before you make your final decision, I have to tell you that company A has a gross profit of 1.5 million a year. Company B has a gross profit of 2 billion a year. Does that make any difference to you when choosing who to invest your money with?

Of course not. You could care less what a company makes every year, you only care about how your money is going to grow. So if company A announces they are going to pay their employees more than their labor is worth, and that reduces their investment growth, would you still invest in their company?

I didn't think so, because nobody would.

You have quite the way of avoiding answering the question.

United States Corporate Profits | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

I avoided nothing. I'm trying to explain to you how company profits have nothing to do with employee pay, but you wish to stay in your own world believing otherwise.

You on the left have this belief that companies look at this pile of money and then try to figure how to divide it up. Business doesn't work that way. An employee is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same quality of work.

If you sweep floors for a living and make ten bucks an hour, you are only worth ten bucks an hour whether your company grosses one million a year or one hundred million a year. It doesn't matter how much they make. You're still only worth ten bucks an hour.

And yet ceos make way more than they are worth and that makes you happy. Please provide a link supporting your claim that high profits don't allow for high pay for workers.

I'm amazed by the support for losing from the right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wealth doesn't "go around" wealth is created.

Diseases go around, rumors go around, gossip goes around, but not wealth.

The problem we have in this country is many wait for others to create wealth and give their earnings to them. Is it not better to teach people to create wealth for themselves instead of hoping others will give them their wealth?

Who complains the most about lack of wealth? Those who have never invested their own money to create wealth.

Companies make outrageous profits! Okay, so why not buy stocks in those companies and share in those profits?

CEO"s are overpaid! Okay, then why not become a CEO yourself and get overpaid?

We can create better jobs! Okay, so start your own company and create those jobs you speak of!

Companies try to get the cheapest labor they can. Okay, but don't you do the very same? If you get three estimates for lawn care of your home, do you not choose the cheapest company? If you need the transmission rebuilt on your car, do you not choose the cheapest garage to rebuild it? If you want to put an addition on your home, don't you choose the cheapest construction company to do the job?

You didn't really answer the question. Do companies still generate enough profit to pay well?

Companies do not rely on gross profit. Companies rely on investments.

For you to understand this better, let's say you ran into a small fortune: A lottery winning, a relative that passed away, a lawsuit.

In any case, you end up (after taxes) with about 400K. Now your house is paid for, your car is paid for you have no outstanding debts. So what do you do with this 400K if you were smart? You invest it.

So you address a reputable investment company and have them do research on making your money grow. You don't want anything too aggressive, you want a conservative lower risk growth, and your company presents two options:

Company A has been around for a long time. Their growth rate is 5.5% per year. Company B is very similar, but they only have a 3.5% growth. Which company will you invest your new money in?

Before you make your final decision, I have to tell you that company A has a gross profit of 1.5 million a year. Company B has a gross profit of 2 billion a year. Does that make any difference to you when choosing who to invest your money with?

Of course not. You could care less what a company makes every year, you only care about how your money is going to grow. So if company A announces they are going to pay their employees more than their labor is worth, and that reduces their investment growth, would you still invest in their company?

I didn't think so, because nobody would.

You have quite the way of avoiding answering the question.

United States Corporate Profits | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

I avoided nothing. I'm trying to explain to you how company profits have nothing to do with employee pay, but you wish to stay in your own world believing otherwise.

You on the left have this belief that companies look at this pile of money and then try to figure how to divide it up. Business doesn't work that way. An employee is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same quality of work.

If you sweep floors for a living and make ten bucks an hour, you are only worth ten bucks an hour whether your company grosses one million a year or one hundred million a year. It doesn't matter how much they make. You're still only worth ten bucks an hour.

And yet ceos make way more than they are worth and that makes you happy. Please provide a link supporting your claim that high profits don't allow for high pay for workers.

I'm amazed by the support for losing from the right.

Why are you reading things in my post that I didn't say? Where did I state that higher profits preclude higher pay for workers? I never said that.

What I said is that profits are irrelevant to employee pay. If you are only worth X amount of money for your work, then that's all you're worth regardless of what the company makes or what they pay their CEO. That is unless you have profit sharing as a benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

You didn't really answer the question. Do companies still generate enough profit to pay well?

Companies do not rely on gross profit. Companies rely on investments.

For you to understand this better, let's say you ran into a small fortune: A lottery winning, a relative that passed away, a lawsuit.

In any case, you end up (after taxes) with about 400K. Now your house is paid for, your car is paid for you have no outstanding debts. So what do you do with this 400K if you were smart? You invest it.

So you address a reputable investment company and have them do research on making your money grow. You don't want anything too aggressive, you want a conservative lower risk growth, and your company presents two options:

Company A has been around for a long time. Their growth rate is 5.5% per year. Company B is very similar, but they only have a 3.5% growth. Which company will you invest your new money in?

Before you make your final decision, I have to tell you that company A has a gross profit of 1.5 million a year. Company B has a gross profit of 2 billion a year. Does that make any difference to you when choosing who to invest your money with?

Of course not. You could care less what a company makes every year, you only care about how your money is going to grow. So if company A announces they are going to pay their employees more than their labor is worth, and that reduces their investment growth, would you still invest in their company?

I didn't think so, because nobody would.

You have quite the way of avoiding answering the question.

United States Corporate Profits | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

I avoided nothing. I'm trying to explain to you how company profits have nothing to do with employee pay, but you wish to stay in your own world believing otherwise.

You on the left have this belief that companies look at this pile of money and then try to figure how to divide it up. Business doesn't work that way. An employee is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same quality of work.

If you sweep floors for a living and make ten bucks an hour, you are only worth ten bucks an hour whether your company grosses one million a year or one hundred million a year. It doesn't matter how much they make. You're still only worth ten bucks an hour.

And yet ceos make way more than they are worth and that makes you happy. Please provide a link supporting your claim that high profits don't allow for high pay for workers.

I'm amazed by the support for losing from the right.

Why are you reading things in my post that I didn't say? Where did I state that higher profits preclude higher pay for workers? I never said that.

What I said is that profits are irrelevant to employee pay. If you are only worth X amount of money for your work, then that's all you're worth regardless of what the company makes or what they pay their CEO. That is unless you have profit sharing as a benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He had more problems than any other President? LOL!

That has to be the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Feel free to explain what it was about the 2 wars, that he ended, that made it impossible for us to have a decent recovery.

Still waiting.

You're waiting for a list of Presidents that dealt with bigger problems than Obama had?
What are you, 12?

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan.
And plenty more. And none of them added $9+ trillion to the debt while delivering such a weak recovery.

That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.

Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

 

[Brain357]

Still waiting.

You're waiting for a list of Presidents that dealt with bigger problems than Obama had?
What are you, 12?

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan.
And plenty more. And none of them added $9+ trillion to the debt while delivering such a weak recovery.

That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.

Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're waiting for a list of Presidents that dealt with bigger problems than Obama had?
What are you, 12?

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan.
And plenty more. And none of them added $9+ trillion to the debt while delivering such a weak recovery.

That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.

Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

 

[Brain357]

That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.

Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

 

[Brain357]

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.