• 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. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? so BEA.gov. got it wrong. Interesting those are the numbers there but guess you know better. Tripling the debt by increasing it 1.7 trillion? Hmmm, wonder if the public would take 1.7 trillion in debt to generate 17 million jobs, growth in GDP from 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion, and a peace dividend. Looks like a pretty good return on a 1.7 trillion dollar debt or do you expect the govt. to make money?
Um, when Raygun entered the WH, GDP was $3.2T. You ALWAYS fudge your dates. Next, after whining about nominal numbers, you start using them. You can't keep your story straight...ever.
 
That is a lie and no matter how many times you state it, it doesn't make it true. Even with Federal Minimum wage that isn't true, Texas has the highest total but not the highest proportion by a long shot. Better worry about your own state with 1.6 million minimum wage workers and leading the nation in poverty.

LOL....your typical M.O. Scream and yell and call it a lie when the figures speak for themselves. Sorry Con....you can call it a lie, but you know otherwise because you have seen the numbers. Texas is tied with Mississippi for having the worst record in the country when it comes to people working for minimum wage. The facts don't lie like you.
 
Um, when Raygun entered the WH, GDP was $3.2T.

Nah, as I noted, the 1980 figure should be used as a baseline.

>>You ALWAYS fudge your dates.

I figure that's what got me off on the wrong track. This guy would say 2+2=5 if he thought he could get away with it.
 
mmi;1064628956]Federal outlays in the FY1989 budget were $1.79 trillion. That's $3.39 trillion adjusted for inflation
.

Well you figured out the quote function, thank you. Now apparently BEA disagrees with you. What is it about liberals who believe that official govt. data is wrong. Have you called them to straighten them out?

My guess is that you would be an embarrassment to Ronald Reagan. And the way you clowns try to claim JFK and MLK as yer own is sickening. Kennedy was a cold warrior, no doubt, and he was a bit late to the game on civil rights, but he was no conservative. To say he was is, as Kobie has correctly pointed out several times of late, patently absurd.

Not sure how old you were when JFK was President but his economic policy was all about cutting taxes and creating jobs.

John F. Kennedy on taxes

I was a JFK Democrat so you have no idea what you are talking about again as usual.

What's yer view on Bobby? A tough, hard-nosed SOB for sure. Ya think he was a conservative like his brother? Ya think their political views were very far apart?

Bobby was a little too liberal for me but he beat Humphrey IMO


For once, yer right. The $2.8 trillion figure should be used as the baseline.

>>The economy at the end of 1988 was 5.2 trillion.

Yes, that is the baseline but you wanted to use 1981 and not 1989 which is what I used

Gee, what happened to yer $5.6 trillion figure? I guess we both made a mistake. You gave him nine years and I gave him seven.

Yep, I used 1989 as the Reagan economic plan wasn't passed until August 1981 so he was responsible for the 81 results and his policies were in place in 1989. What is amazing is that even the 2.4 trillion increase in GDP doesn't resonate with you

>>Trillions? Really? the entire economy was less than 3 trillion when he took office and the budget wasn't even a trillion dollars.

If yer gonna compare Reagan's dollar numbers to Obama's, you need to adjust for inflation. You say I need to learn what nominal means. I'd say the lack of understanding is on yer part. You say that adjusting for inflation is a mistake. Yeah, OK.

You adjust for inflation not only for expenses but revenue as well. The Reagan debt would have been 3.4 trillion in 8 years not the 7.6 trillion Obama has generated in less than 7. Inflation adjusted numbers are good to compare but during the time they were irrelevant. People living in the 80's lived with 80's dollars and expenses

>>Please research the Reagan stimulus and tell me how much spending was in that stimulus?

I already did, in post #343.

No, sorry, there was no spending in the Reagan Stimulus it was all tax cuts and reform


>>you claim all the 2009 deficit was Bush's please tell me how he did that from October 2008 to January 21, 2009 and then show me the Bush signed 2009 budget?

I spent a lot of time on this a year ago and I won't do it again. An outgoing president has the responsibility for the spending that takes place in the fiscal year that starts in Oct of his last full year. It's his budget and he's there for four months of it. It doesn't matter if he signs it or not. Dubya could just as well be criticized for not stepping up the plate.

No, sorry, Bush submitted a budget proposal that was rejected by Congress. Continuing resolutions were passed at the 2008 levels and there is no way that Bush is responsible for what Obama spent after taking office and that includes the stimulus, recycling the TARP repayment, taking over GM, the Afghanistan supplemental, Bailing out Freddie and Fannie. Obama signed the 2009 budget in March knowing people like you would blame Bush. He was right, so was Gruber

Now 2009 was a very exceptional year. And yes, some of the spending can reasonably be attributed to Obama. I think the number was about 12-15%. You have no interest in how the numbers could reasonably be divided up. You just wanna push yer partisan, ideological line. Anyone who doesn't share yer mindset can see that.

That is your opinion. Any idea when the stimulus was passed and signed and where those shovels went to create shovel ready jobs and new taxpayers to help govt. revenue?

Obama is incompetent and truly unqualified for the office. Defense of him makes Gruber look brilliant
 
Wait, you are arguing that the massive increase in military spending by St Raygun was not a stimulative measure?

Nope, it was the result of the extra money coming in because of the jobs being created and the Reagan stimulus. your use of the term Raygun is quite telling. Too bad you are incapable of competing in society and are jealous of what others have. The liberal in me feels sorry for you
 
Um, when Raygun entered the WH, GDP was $3.2T. You ALWAYS fudge your dates. Next, after whining about nominal numbers, you start using them. You can't keep your story straight...ever.

BEA.gov disagrees with you. The end of 1980 it was 2.8 trillion
 
Nope, it was the result of the extra money coming in because of the jobs being created and the Reagan stimulus.
We are not talking about revenue, we are talking about spending. Defense spending was spending, it was ramped up dramatically (as I documented)....and created many of those jobs.....increased FEDERAL jobs.



your use of the term Raygun is quite telling. Too bad you are incapable of competing in society and are jealous of what others have. The liberal in me feels sorry for you
You know what happens with insults.
 
We are not talking about revenue, we are talking about spending. Defense spending was spending, it was ramped up dramatically (as I documented)....and created many of those jobs.....increased FEDERAL jobs.



You know what happens with insults.

Yes, spending is spending but no spending was in the Reagan stimulus plan

So you think that was an insult. If taken as such my apology, I thought it was reality
 
Yes, spending is spending but no spending was in the Reagan stimulus plan
Well there you go, you get to deny the massive increases in govt spending as stimulus. This is just the sort of dishonest posting I have come to expect.

So you think that was an insult. If taken as such my apology, I thought it was reality
It isn't up to me to make the judgement.
 
Got it, Reagan is responsible for everything that happened in 1981 and 1989(9 years) but Obama isn't responsible for 2009? Liberal logic and very selective analysis on your part.
I'm more that willing to argue that Reagan as a matter of policy does not get to claim his first year (we keep telling you that the last budget is largely in effect as are the economic conditions) as again, Obama was only responsible for @ 12% of the 2009 budget....as you have been shown time after time after time. But that has nothing to with showing that GDP was NOT "$2.8T" in 1981.
 
I'm more that willing to argue that Reagan as a matter of policy does not get to claim his first year (we keep telling you that the last budget is largely in effect as are the economic conditions) as again, Obama was only responsible for @ 12% of the 2009 budget....as you have been shown time after time after time. But that has nothing to with showing that GDP was NOT "$2.8T" in 1981.

What you want to ignore is the FACT, there was a budget in 1981 and NONE in 2009 until Obama signed it. Now tell me why Reagan is responsible for the 1981 deficit but Obama not responsible for the 2009 deficit?
 
Get someone to read this for you, the Reagan stimulus program was the Economic recovery Act of 1981 it was all tax cuts. Compare that Act to Obama's

Column: The Reagan stimulus vs. the Obama one - USATODAY.com
I have no idea why you think Kengor, the ultimate Raygun bootlicker, has any standing in defining what stimulative spending happened under Raygun, especially since he limits his discussion to tax cuts as stimulation. He is a frigging Poli-Sci major. FFS!
 
I have no idea why you think Kengor, the ultimate Raygun bootlicker, has any standing in defining what stimulative spending happened under Raygun, especially since he limits his discussion to tax cuts as stimulation. He is a frigging Poli-Sci major. FFS!

Doesn't matter whose boots he licks, are the numbers accurate? BLS, BEA, and Treasury say the numbers back Reagan and destroy Obama
 
What you want to ignore is the FACT, there was a budget in 1981 and NONE in 2009 until Obama signed it. Now tell me why Reagan is responsible for the 1981 deficit but Obama not responsible for the 2009 deficit?
We REALLY have to go through this charade every frigging day with you? I suppose so since no matter the number of times posted, you still can't remember who was responsible for the FY2009 budget:

Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

Are you ever going to admit that the BEA does NOT support your "$2.8T" for Raygun?
 
It has everything to do with destroying incentive and penalizing wealth creation which Democrats are good at doing except to their own.

Be serious! You didn't know the term until this recent exchange. It has to do with how savings pushes real interest rates into negative territory. Interestingly enough, it is achieved through the same neo-liberal policy to which you ascribe.
 
Doesn't matter whose boots he licks, are the numbers accurate? BLS, BEA, and Treasury say the numbers back Reagan and destroy Obama
And you have gone off on a tangent from what is stimulative spending.
 
No it isn't shrinking but it is stagnating and not growing in relationship to the population nor is job creation. The labor force grew over 10 million during the Bush term and 2 million under Obama. That is stagnation promoted by liberalism.

Prompted by a bubble of epic proportion! Not a good idea to tout Bush43 economic policy as a measure of success. It costs you credibility.
 
We REALLY have to go through this charade every frigging day with you? I suppose so since no matter the number of times posted, you still can't remember who was responsible for the FY2009 budget:

Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

Are you ever going to admit that the BEA does NOT support your "$2.8T" for Raygun?

No, it is you that seems to have a problem, BEA does indeed support my 2.8 trillion as another poster acknowledged. You seem to have a problem reading graphs along with logic and common sense

There was no budget for 2009 but there was one for 1981. Obama signed the 2009 budget which of course you want to blame on Bush. Guess when you sign a contract you don't accept responsibility but Reagan who didn't sign the 1981 budget is responsible for the deficit that year. Do you realize that you are making Gruber look and sound brilliant?
 
No, it is you that seems to have a problem, BEA does indeed support my 2.8 trillion as another poster acknowledged. You seem to have a problem reading graphs along with logic and common sense

There was no budget for 2009 but there was one for 1981. Obama signed the 2009 budget which of course you want to blame on Bush. Guess when you sign a contract you don't accept responsibility but Reagan who didn't sign the 1981 budget is responsible for the deficit that year. Do you realize that you are making Gruber look and sound brilliant?

Capture.JPG
 
Prompted by a bubble of epic proportion! Not a good idea to tout Bush43 economic policy as a measure of success. It costs you credibility.

Then what would you call touting Obama's economic numbers as a success? It is all relative and about context along with basic civics
 
:lol: Man, Con is such a ****ing mess. Someone get this guy off the internet before further damage is caused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom