• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Employers Add 169k jobs

Govt. spending was indeed too high but the benefits of that spending are what many here overlook. Reagan set a record for vetoes but in order to destroy the Soviet Union and stimulate the economy he had to compromise with Democrats who controlled the House. In spite, a 60% growth in Federal Income tax revenue with tax cuts is something that liberals want to ignore just like the growth in govt. revenue AFTER the Bush tax cuts. Economic activity is what grows revenue more than tax increases.

It matters not what your garden grows if you must comsume more than that to survive. ;)
 
It matters not what your garden grows if you must comsume more than that to survive. ;)

What Reagan did was create a peace dividend that was squandered. What do you think the cost would be today for the build up of our military in the 80's that destroyed the Soviet Union? IF someone told you they were going to create 17 million jobs, double GDP, increase tax revenue, stimulate individual wealth creation and destroy the Soviet union for a 1.7 trillion dollar debt, what would you say?
 
Ahhh you go further back to Reagan trickle down did not exactly work!!

I would probably take Volker's induced recession as the clear end of the period after which the buildup to our present problems.
 
Do you think we would be having this discussion if Obama created 17 million jobs and had a 1.7 trillion dollar debt? He would have been nominated for Sainthood.

Indeed, but he would have also "invested" more than that in all manner of income redistribution programs. ;)
 
What Reagan did was create a peace dividend that was squandered. What do you think the cost would be today for the build up of our military in the 80's that destroyed the Soviet Union? IF someone told you they were going to create 17 million jobs, double GDP, increase tax revenue, stimulate individual wealth creation and destroy the Soviet union for a 1.7 trillion dollar debt, what would you say?

No, thank you. Because at the same time we also commited to more than that in added federal gov't spending by "negotiating" that deal with congress critters. :roll:
 
Indeed, but he would have also "invested" more than that in all manner of income redistribution programs. ;)

The problem seems to be what redistribution of wealth really means? If you mean transferring wealth from the Federal Govt. to the individual then I am all for it and that is what Reagan did because the Federal Govt. doesn't create wealth. We had more than enough money generated by the Reagan economy to provide what the govt. actually needs but what happened was all that money generated set the standards for what we see today, creation of the entitlement society by buying votes which politicians always do. The Second Reagan term was a disappointment to me but it was the first term that set the standards and brought us out of the recession quickly and with strong economic growth. Obama doesn't understand that jobs are created by strong economic growth, Reagan did.
 
No, thank you. Because at the same time we also commited to more than that in added federal gov't spending by "negotiating" that deal with congress critters. :roll:

Unfortunately depending upon your leanings our govt. is based upon a Representative democracy and having "congress critters" that have to be dealt with. It really is time for term limits at the Federal level.
 
Unfortunately depending upon your leanings our govt. is based upon a Representative democracy and having "congress critters" that have to be dealt with. It really is time for term limits at the Federal level.

We have them now - they are called primary elections. The problem is that it takes billions to even have a chance to run, that is offered mainly to incumbents (and carefully selected challengers) only - as is free press, since anything that the incumbents say is "news". DC is run by and for the big campaign contributors and their loyal lobbyists, we the sheeple are simply fooled into voting for only those that they offer up to us as "viable" candidates.
 
We have them now - they are called primary elections. The problem is that it takes billions to even have a chance to run, that is offered mainly to incumbents (and carefully selected challengers) only - as is free press, since anything that the incumbents say is "news". DC is run by and for the big campaign contributors and their loyal lobbyists, we the sheeple are simply fooled into voting for only those that they offer up to us as "viable" candidates.

Seems to work rather well in the states but you nailed it, too much money in politics today but money alone doesn't buy elections, ignorance and apathy are more prevalent
 
technically yes, he did, 900 billion to 2.6 trillion during his term but what we got for it made it worth it, something liberals will never understand.

Technically no he didn't. A President cant increase the debt. The Treasury can by issuing t-bonds, so long as congress and the President have passed laws allowing such borrowing. Blaming a President is political, not technical.
 
You cite much of the Reagan myth yet ignore much of the Reagan reality:



"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

Also note that Reagan increased the U.S. national debt 188.6% during his eight year term.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Yes he did. And he left the Russians so bankrupt that they threw in the towel. And Bush senior began planing how to cut the deficit. Growth was good and the deficit fell briefly.

And at this point our present problems got started.
 
What Reagan did was create a peace dividend that was squandered. What do you think the cost would be today for the build up of our military in the 80's that destroyed the Soviet Union? IF someone told you they were going to create 17 million jobs, double GDP, increase tax revenue, stimulate individual wealth creation and destroy the Soviet union for a 1.7 trillion dollar debt, what would you say?

Do you not undertsand that the Siviet Union was going bankrupt back in the Nixon presidency they knew it was a matter of time. I haveto correct you on one thing or raised the debt 189%. Regan did not destroy the Soviets they did that all on their own. Talk about a clear rewrite of history. Still the debt almost tripled under Reagan, isnt this what you are griping about under Obama?? I know Reagan is the right god but when it came to spending he was in fact the worst of the bunch
 
Do you not undertsand that the Siviet Union was going bankrupt back in the Nixon presidency they knew it was a matter of time. I haveto correct you on one thing or raised the debt 189%. Regan did not destroy the Soviets they did that all on their own. Talk about a clear rewrite of history. Still the debt almost tripled under Reagan, isnt this what you are griping about under Obama?? I know Reagan is the right god but when it came to spending he was in fact the worst of the bunch

Do you understand how little credibility you have? You really have a problem understanding our economy and our country in addition you are unable to read basic English. I gave you the Reagan Record and it is verifiable on the non partisan BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and U.S. Treasury Website. You insist on trying to divert from the Obama record.

Is 6.4 trillion in debt better than 1.7 trillion in debt because it is a lower percentage increase?

Is debt service paid by the taxpayers on percentage change or the actual debt?

Do you even know the difference between debt and deficits?

Your alias is definitely correct, "greengirl" with green being the operative word meaning young and lacking the ability to do any research.

Green: inexperienced at a particular task or in a line of business. Origin: possibly from the color of unripe fruit.
 
Last edited:
Do you not undertsand that the Siviet Union was going bankrupt back in the Nixon presidency they knew it was a matter of time. I haveto correct you on one thing or raised the debt 189%. Regan did not destroy the Soviets they did that all on their own. Talk about a clear rewrite of history. Still the debt almost tripled under Reagan, isnt this what you are griping about under Obama?? I know Reagan is the right god but when it came to spending he was in fact the worst of the bunch

How are you coming on finding the data to support your claim that Obama inherited a 12 trillion dollar debt? So many claims and so little information to back them.
 
Back
Top Bottom