- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- is everything
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Really? so BEA.gov. got it wrong. Interesting those are the numbers
Got a link?
Really? so BEA.gov. got it wrong. Interesting those are the numbers
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.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?
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.
Um, when Raygun entered the WH, GDP was $3.2T.
.mmi;1064628956]Federal outlays in the FY1989 budget were $1.79 trillion. That's $3.39 trillion adjusted for inflation
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.
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?
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.
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.
>>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.
>>Please research the Reagan stimulus and tell me how much spending was in that stimulus?
I already did, in post #343.
>>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.
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.
Wait, you are arguing that the massive increase in military spending by St Raygun was not a stimulative measure?
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.
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.Nope, it was the result of the extra money coming in because of the jobs being created and the Reagan stimulus.
You know what happens with insults.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
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.
I'm not giving you or Raygun the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1980, nor do you get the first quarter of 1981.BEA.gov disagrees with you. The end of 1980 it was 2.8 trillion
I'm not giving you or Raygun the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1980, nor do you get the first quarter of 1981.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.c...i=1&904=1989&903=5&906=q&905=1979&910=x&911=0
$3.131B
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.Yes, spending is spending but no spending was in the Reagan stimulus plan
It isn't up to me to make the judgement.So you think that was an insult. If taken as such my apology, I thought it was reality
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.
It isn't up to me to make the judgement.
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.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 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!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!
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: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?
It has everything to do with destroying incentive and penalizing wealth creation which Democrats are good at doing except to their own.
And you have gone off on a tangent from what is stimulative spending.Doesn't matter whose boots he licks, are the numbers accurate? BLS, BEA, and Treasury say the numbers back Reagan and destroy Obama
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.
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?
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.