Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is considerable disagreement about the state of the economy when Reagan and BO took charge. Many can cite stats showing Reagan had it much worse, while others claim BO did. Reagan did not bail out the .1%. BO did.In order to avoid dissimilar starting points, I think we would need to agree on comparisons between the economy Carter left Reagan, and the economy Bush left Obama.I can tell you there are leftists on this forum who believe it. They think BO's massive deficit spending was necessary to keep the economy going. BO spent exponentially more than Reagan, but Reagan's economy boomed for over two decades...we are still waiting for BO's economy to boom. Yet many libs condemn Reagan for deficit spending while commending BO. Makes no sense.I'm a leftist, and I don't know any leftists who think that. Not saying they don't exist, but....Leftist think...
- Ronnie bad for blowing up the national debt.
- Barry good for blowing up the national debt.
You figure it out.
Reagan blew up the debt in a time when that stimulated the economy, so all that deficit spending on a shiny new high tech military spurred the economy.
Obama is blowing up the debt with the same intent, as well as just trying to keep the wheels turning with the economy. But the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world. Foreign economic competition is infinitely more potent, and expecting government spending to stimulate an exhausted economy just won't work like it did for Reagan
Could you reference a link showing proof that American workers are the least cost effective? This is news to me.
Furthermore it sounds like you're crediting the prosperity during the Clinton administration to Reagan...so we have to agree on who gets the credit, and the blame, for overlapping trends.
Moreover, most economists that provide analyses outside of political context, will tell you a President only has a maximum effect of 10% + or - on the economy, depending on how smart, stupid, lucky, or unlucky, they are.
A lot to unwind right, and you don't seem like someone interested in a pissing contest, like myself.
As far as providing a link for my opinion that the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world...isn't that somewhat self evident based on the increase in outsourcing of American jobs?
I am of the opinion that presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy. I think the American economy is an engine that just needs very slight monitoring for it to hum. Reagan got the government out of the way and it boomed. BO did the opposite and we can see the results with nearly 100 million working age Americans not working.
Regarding cost effectiveness of the American worker, the off shoring of jobs is not a good indicator. It may be for certain industries that need lots of unskilled labor, but not so for those needing skilled labor. Much of the American work force is working more productively and for more hours than in years past.
BS, he was asked that question in a court of law, what is so hard for you to understand? If he had not then it would be nothing but an ill advised BJ. Yes, it would have made all the news but would not be impeachable.
My feeling is that the POTUS and Congress can only make recoveries worse, not much better. The best thing to do, in most cases, is to do nothing except provide help to those who are truly suffering.
BS, he was asked that question in a court of law, what is so hard for you to understand? If he had not then it would be nothing but an ill advised BJ. Yes, it would have made all the news but would not be impeachable.
except the judge ruled that the question wasn't relevent to the case and the case itself had no merit.
But I do love the wingnut logic.
Lie about a blow job- No one dies and no one is hurt, but that's an impeachable offense.
Lie about weapons that don't exist, - 4500 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis die, but that's just politics.
Interesting, and I agree up to the point that the POTUS and Congress can't help the economy be better, some...There is considerable disagreement about the state of the economy when Reagan and BO took charge. Many can cite stats showing Reagan had it much worse, while others claim BO did. Reagan did not bail out the .1%. BO did.In order to avoid dissimilar starting points, I think we would need to agree on comparisons between the economy Carter left Reagan, and the economy Bush left Obama.I can tell you there are leftists on this forum who believe it. They think BO's massive deficit spending was necessary to keep the economy going. BO spent exponentially more than Reagan, but Reagan's economy boomed for over two decades...we are still waiting for BO's economy to boom. Yet many libs condemn Reagan for deficit spending while commending BO. Makes no sense.I'm a leftist, and I don't know any leftists who think that. Not saying they don't exist, but....Leftist think...
- Ronnie bad for blowing up the national debt.
- Barry good for blowing up the national debt.
You figure it out.
Reagan blew up the debt in a time when that stimulated the economy, so all that deficit spending on a shiny new high tech military spurred the economy.
Obama is blowing up the debt with the same intent, as well as just trying to keep the wheels turning with the economy. But the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world. Foreign economic competition is infinitely more potent, and expecting government spending to stimulate an exhausted economy just won't work like it did for Reagan
Could you reference a link showing proof that American workers are the least cost effective? This is news to me.
Furthermore it sounds like you're crediting the prosperity during the Clinton administration to Reagan...so we have to agree on who gets the credit, and the blame, for overlapping trends.
Moreover, most economists that provide analyses outside of political context, will tell you a President only has a maximum effect of 10% + or - on the economy, depending on how smart, stupid, lucky, or unlucky, they are.
A lot to unwind right, and you don't seem like someone interested in a pissing contest, like myself.
As far as providing a link for my opinion that the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world...isn't that somewhat self evident based on the increase in outsourcing of American jobs?
I am of the opinion that presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy. I think the American economy is an engine that just needs very slight monitoring for it to hum. Reagan got the government out of the way and it boomed. BO did the opposite and we can see the results with nearly 100 million working age Americans not working.
Regarding cost effectiveness of the American worker, the off shoring of jobs is not a good indicator. It may be for certain industries that need lots of unskilled labor, but not so for those needing skilled labor. Much of the American work force is working more productively and for more hours than in years past.
My feeling is that the POTUS and Congress can only make recoveries worse, not much better. The best thing to do, in most cases, is to do nothing except provide help to those who are truly suffering.
Of course you are lying about lying but what the hell that is what Clinton did and you are only following suit. He lied under oath, that is against the law, he was investigated and impeached, fitting punishment.
Interesting, and I agree up to the point that the POTUS and Congress can't help the economy be better, some...There is considerable disagreement about the state of the economy when Reagan and BO took charge. Many can cite stats showing Reagan had it much worse, while others claim BO did. Reagan did not bail out the .1%. BO did.In order to avoid dissimilar starting points, I think we would need to agree on comparisons between the economy Carter left Reagan, and the economy Bush left Obama.I can tell you there are leftists on this forum who believe it. They think BO's massive deficit spending was necessary to keep the economy going. BO spent exponentially more than Reagan, but Reagan's economy boomed for over two decades...we are still waiting for BO's economy to boom. Yet many libs condemn Reagan for deficit spending while commending BO. Makes no sense.I'm a leftist, and I don't know any leftists who think that. Not saying they don't exist, but....
Reagan blew up the debt in a time when that stimulated the economy, so all that deficit spending on a shiny new high tech military spurred the economy.
Obama is blowing up the debt with the same intent, as well as just trying to keep the wheels turning with the economy. But the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world. Foreign economic competition is infinitely more potent, and expecting government spending to stimulate an exhausted economy just won't work like it did for Reagan
Could you reference a link showing proof that American workers are the least cost effective? This is news to me.
Furthermore it sounds like you're crediting the prosperity during the Clinton administration to Reagan...so we have to agree on who gets the credit, and the blame, for overlapping trends.
Moreover, most economists that provide analyses outside of political context, will tell you a President only has a maximum effect of 10% + or - on the economy, depending on how smart, stupid, lucky, or unlucky, they are.
A lot to unwind right, and you don't seem like someone interested in a pissing contest, like myself.
As far as providing a link for my opinion that the average American worker is the least cost effective worker in the world...isn't that somewhat self evident based on the increase in outsourcing of American jobs?
I am of the opinion that presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy. I think the American economy is an engine that just needs very slight monitoring for it to hum. Reagan got the government out of the way and it boomed. BO did the opposite and we can see the results with nearly 100 million working age Americans not working.
Regarding cost effectiveness of the American worker, the off shoring of jobs is not a good indicator. It may be for certain industries that need lots of unskilled labor, but not so for those needing skilled labor. Much of the American work force is working more productively and for more hours than in years past.
My feeling is that the POTUS and Congress can only make recoveries worse, not much better. The best thing to do, in most cases, is to do nothing except provide help to those who are truly suffering.
So do you think that Reagan didn't have much of a part in that recovery?
I will say I think people like the Koch Brothers ad Bill Gates are the people that make recoveries better
Reagan's legacy diminishes each year as his subjective supporters fade away and are replaced with objective people who were small children or not yet born during his terms as President. If a President is judged by his legacy, few compare to FDR. Only Washington and Lincoln surpass him, occasionally Jefferson. Policies of FDR remain important and positive aspects of American life 80 years after the New Deal began. It is hard for a 65 year old American to view FDR in the negative when they get their monthly Social Security check.As can be seen in this thread, everyone doesn't love Reagan, liked him or have fond memories of him.
TRUE !!
BUT.., he was the best president in my lifetime, and i do remember that commie sympathizer FDR.
and i will not mention how he goaded the Japs into WWII
Reagan's number one legacy topic is his so called defeat of the Soviet Union and victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately it hasn't and doesn't stand up to the test of time. The Soviet's dissolved several years after Reagan left office and credit is recognized and shared with Pope John Paul ll, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterand, Mikail Gorbachev and the rioters, demonstrators, protesters, etc. of eastern European countries. In 2015 the USA is still in a Cold War with the remnants of what the Reagan supporters claimed he defeated. The monster just went into hibernation and changed it's name.
His economic policies are hotly debated and viewed negatively by enough students and schools of thought related to economics to make his economic policies a neutralized non issue.
Failure of Reagan to control corruption of his administration led to him overseeing the most corrupt administration in history when the criteria used is the number of indictments, convictions and pardons required by the President who followed the mess he left.
Each year more and more historians have studied his failure to respond to terrorist attacks and his willingness to work with and create groups that became primary founders of some of the best known terrorist organizations of today that seeded and blossomed under his policies.
The list of blunders made by Reagan goes on and on. It is hard to imagine him rising in popularity as more and more of these blunders become recognized as the causes of so many problems of today and into the future.
That is just a crock of shit. FDR? come on. FDR started the liberal BS that has put this country in debt, destroyed the american family, destroyed our manufacturing base, and made us soft and weak.
FDR was a terrible president. He had information that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing to stop it.
Seriously, I can't understand that. He was arming Iran illegally, vetoed an anti-Apartheid act, gave amnesty to three million immigrants and raised taxes. Not to mention that he had Alzheimer's and was basically just a living vegetable by the end of his second term. And now Reagan is a role model for Scott Walker (who criticizes Obama for Iran nuclear deal). Isn't it hypocritical?
I think Reagan's legacy is built upon restoring esteem to the military which had languished since Vietnam and further damaged by the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission.
Wow, look at the post right before yours.It is always amazing to watch the Libtard trolls come out of the woodwork with their lies, diversions, and generally scripted trash.
#69
Doesn't that sound like a garden variety talking point, a diversion? Not so much on thoughtful? and Trollish
75 year old conspiracy theories that have failed after all these decades to be anything more than conspiracy theories.Wow, look at the post right before yours.It is always amazing to watch the Libtard trolls come out of the woodwork with their lies, diversions, and generally scripted trash.
#69
Doesn't that sound like a garden variety talking point, a diversion? Not so much on thoughtful? and Trollish
Actually the part about FDR knowing about and ignoring the pending attack on Pearl Harbor is far more true than liberal historians care to accept. He wanted us to enter the war in Europe and also expand the economy by massive infusion of $$$ into industry.
you crashed the economy...... did you forget that one?
Reagan's legacy diminishes each year as his subjective supporters fade away and are replaced with objective people who were small children or not yet born during his terms as President. If a President is judged by his legacy, few compare to FDR. Only Washington and Lincoln surpass him, occasionally Jefferson. Policies of FDR remain important and positive aspects of American life 80 years after the New Deal began. It is hard for a 65 year old American to view FDR in the negative when they get their monthly Social Security check.As can be seen in this thread, everyone doesn't love Reagan, liked him or have fond memories of him.
TRUE !!
BUT.., he was the best president in my lifetime, and i do remember that commie sympathizer FDR.
and i will not mention how he goaded the Japs into WWII
Reagan's number one legacy topic is his so called defeat of the Soviet Union and victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately it hasn't and doesn't stand up to the test of time. The Soviet's dissolved several years after Reagan left office and credit is recognized and shared with Pope John Paul ll, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterand, Mikail Gorbachev and the rioters, demonstrators, protesters, etc. of eastern European countries. In 2015 the USA is still in a Cold War with the remnants of what the Reagan supporters claimed he defeated. The monster just went into hibernation and changed it's name.
His economic policies are hotly debated and viewed negatively by enough students and schools of thought related to economics to make his economic policies a neutralized non issue.
Failure of Reagan to control corruption of his administration led to him overseeing the most corrupt administration in history when the criteria used is the number of indictments, convictions and pardons required by the President who followed the mess he left.
Each year more and more historians have studied his failure to respond to terrorist attacks and his willingness to work with and create groups that became primary founders of some of the best known terrorist organizations of today that seeded and blossomed under his policies.
The list of blunders made by Reagan goes on and on. It is hard to imagine him rising in popularity as more and more of these blunders become recognized as the causes of so many problems of today and into the future.
That is just a crock of shit. FDR? come on. FDR started the liberal BS that has put this country in debt, destroyed the american family, destroyed our manufacturing base, and made us soft and weak.
FDR was a terrible president. He had information that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and did nothing to stop it.
Talk about a crock of shit...FDR did NONE of what you accuse him of. Our manufacturing base blossomed and grew under FDR. Our debt was because of WWII and it was paid down through tax revenue. FDR made America the biggest superpower on this planet.
Reagan was the biggest disaster in American history...
Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
None of their masters Democrat Presidents could even come close to what Reagan did in winning
SNIP:
Reagan Wins By a Landslide, Sweeping at Least 48 States; G.O.P. Gains Strength in House
By HOWELL RAINES
Published: November 7, 1984
Ronald Wilson Reagan won a second term as President yesterday in an election that Republican leaders hailed as a sweeping personal triumph and a mandate for his policies.
Mr. Reagan secured clear landslide victories in both popular and electoral votes as he defeated Walter F. Mondale, the Democratic nominee, in at least 48 of the 50 states.
However, it remained unclear whether the powerful tide of support for Mr. Reagan ran deeply enough to carry enough Republican Congressional candidates into office to secure the ''historic electoral realignment'' that the President asked the voters to deliver.
FROM:
Reagan Wins By a Landslide Sweeping at Least 48 States - G.O.P. Gains Strength in House - NYTimes.com
that's why they hate him so much....or their left wing hates tells them they are suppose to.
half OF them on here probably weren't even born yet
They hold all that hate for what now? 25-30 years since Reagan has been gone out of office
sad people
None of their masters Democrat Presidents could even come close to what Reagan did in winning
SNIP:
Reagan Wins By a Landslide, Sweeping at Least 48 States; G.O.P. Gains Strength in House
By HOWELL RAINES
Published: November 7, 1984
Ronald Wilson Reagan won a second term as President yesterday in an election that Republican leaders hailed as a sweeping personal triumph and a mandate for his policies.
Mr. Reagan secured clear landslide victories in both popular and electoral votes as he defeated Walter F. Mondale, the Democratic nominee, in at least 48 of the 50 states.
However, it remained unclear whether the powerful tide of support for Mr. Reagan ran deeply enough to carry enough Republican Congressional candidates into office to secure the ''historic electoral realignment'' that the President asked the voters to deliver.
FROM:
Reagan Wins By a Landslide Sweeping at Least 48 States - G.O.P. Gains Strength in House - NYTimes.com
that's why they hate him so much....or their left wing hates tells them they are suppose to.
half OF them on here probably weren't even born yet
They hold all that hate for what now? 25-30 years since Reagan has been gone out of office
sad people
Liberals are determined to rewrite the parts of history that do not fit with their socialist marxist agenda, and to indoctrinate kids with that false version of history.
how many times did ronny raise taxes?
