• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pennsylvania poll: Obama up by 11 [W:267]

So exactly what results of Obama are center right? You think this country was built on govt. dependence that Obama is creating and that is center right?

What government dependence has he created? A healthcare reform that includes a provision that everybody buy their own insurance instead of going to the emergency room and not paying the bill? A GM bailout that isn't much different than the Chrysler bailout by Reagan and a lot less forgiving than the bank Bailouts by Bush? The giving states rights to be more flexible on welfare to work only IF they can prove it leads to more individuals leaving welfare to enter the workforce?

More people are on public assistance...yeah we just had an economy in free fall that is now stumbling along. A lot of the programs holding them up were created in the 1960's not Obama. This idea there's been this radical shift to the left by Obama and Democrats is only heard on the far right.
 
What government dependence has he created? A healthcare reform that includes a provision that everybody buy their own insurance instead of going to the emergency room and not paying the bill? A GM bailout that isn't much different than the Chrysler bailout by Reagan and a lot less forgiving than the bank Bailouts by Bush? The giving states rights to be more flexible on welfare to work only IF they can prove it leads to more individuals leaving welfare to enter the workforce?

More people are on public assistance...yeah we just had an economy in free fall that is now stumbling along. A lot of the programs holding them up were created in the 1960's not Obama. This idea there's been this radical shift to the left by Obama and Democrats is only heard on the far right.

Expansion of unemployment insurance, Obamacare, increases in Medicaid. Want me to go on? How long are you going to blame the recession on Bush and not for the failures of Obama? Were you old enough to know what the 81-82 recession was like? Leadership brought us out of that mess and lack of leadership is keeping us in this mess. When does Obama become responsible for the economy and economy results thus failures?

Name for me a successful liberal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a social problem, and then went away? The fact that every social program costs more than intended, has yet to solve a social problem and contributed significantly to the 16 trillion dollar debt speaks to people who think with their hearts and forget their brain.
 
Last edited:
See, you miss the point entirely, because we had a 10.6 trillion dollar debt when Obama took office doesn't give him the right to put spending on steroids. He was hired to fix the mess and given total control of the Congress to do that. The results posted are today, almost four years later. When do the economy and economic results become Obama's responsibility and why is it that so many here have no concept of leadership?

If you took the Obama results to an employer four years after taking office you would be fired so why should we believe that the next four years will be any different than the last four? Do you think the country can afford a 20 trillion dollar debt in a 15 trillion dollar economy? How does QE3 help the lower and middle class Americans? I can see how it helps the stock market and Wall Street but not the average American for the value of the dollar affects the lower and middle class more than the upper class.

Yes, he was hired to fix that mess. He himself however said it would take more than a term. I would agree with you if he had received an economy with a steady 4% unemployment rate. But he didn't, he got one going downhill. We both know I don't need to tell you what happena when unemployment skyrockets: revenue goes down becausd of less people paying taxes and increased spending in unemployment checks.
 
Yes, he was hired to fix that mess. He himself however said it would take more than a term. I would agree with you if he had received an economy with a steady 4% unemployment rate. But he didn't, he got one going downhill. We both know I don't need to tell you what happena when unemployment skyrockets: revenue goes down becausd of less people paying taxes and increased spending in unemployment checks.


And you believe him? What did he say to win election the first time? How do you explain that after adding 5.4 trillion to the debt the numbers are worse today than when he took office? What has happened is we have a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and 16 trillion dollar Federal debt that has more unemployed/under employed/discouraged along with almost record numbers on food stamps and in poverty. Why does he deserve four more years with that record?
 
Expansion of unemployment insurance, Obamacare, increases in Medicaid. Want me to go on? How long are you going to blame the recession for the failures of Obama? Were you old enough to know what the 81-82 recession was like? Leadership brought us out of that mess and lack of leadership is keeping us in this mess. When does Obama become responsible for the economy and economy results thus failures?
Unemployment has been temporarily expanded is almost every major recession since it's inception. The increases in medicaid are part of the Affordable healthcare act and once again it's goal is univerasal coverage but it uses conservative principles for the most part.

As for leadership bringing out out of the mess in the 80's...are you sure a drop in oil prices and a lowering of interest rates didn't do that?

Name for me a successful liberal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a social problem, and then went away? The fact that every social program costs more than intended, has yet to solve a social problem and contributed significantly to the 16 trillion dollar debt speaks to people who think with their hearts and forget their brain.

Most of the social programs passed in the 60's and during the New Deal were never created to go away. Medicare and Social Security have worked pretty well....senior citizens dont' have near the poverty rate they did pre-Medicare and Social Security. That right there is the central legislative piece of 20th Century Liberalism and it's also popular as hell. It's the third rail not because Democrats think it's important but because voters don't want it to go away.
 
Name for me a successful liberal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a social problem, and then went away? The fact that every social program costs more than intended, has yet to solve a social problem and contributed significantly to the 16 trillion dollar debt speaks to people who think with their hearts and forget their brain.

Social Security?
 
Unemployment has been temporarily expanded is almost every major recession since it's inception. The increases in medicaid are part of the Affordable healthcare act and once again it's goal is univerasal coverage but it uses conservative principles for the most part.

As for leadership bringing out out of the mess in the 80's...are you sure a drop in oil prices and a lowering of interest rates didn't do that?



Most of the social programs passed in the 60's and during the New Deal were never created to go away. Medicare and Social Security have worked pretty well....senior citizens dont' have near the poverty rate they did pre-Medicare and Social Security. That right there is the central legislative piece of 20th Century Liberalism and it's also popular as hell. It's the third rail not because Democrats think it's important but because voters don't want it to go away.

I lived and worked during the 81-82 recession and it was leadership that brought us out of that recession not demonization of individual wealth creation and promotion of class warfare.

Check out your history on those programs and then tell me why Medicare and SS are on budget items funded by the general revenue? Medicaid is a joint effort between the state and federal govt. what happens when funding from the Federal govt. runs out?

Unemployment has been temporarilty expanded? Is two years a temporary expansion? How many of the 23 million U-6 are under employed? Is that the definition of liberal success?
 
And you believe him? What did he say to win election the first time? How do you explain that after adding 5.4 trillion to the debt the numbers are worse today than when he took office? What has happened is we have a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and 16 trillion dollar Federal debt that has more unemployed/under employed/discouraged along with almost record numbers on food stamps and in poverty. Why does he deserve four more years with that record?

I will get to you on that later (I will). Right now I have to stop posting because I'm in class.
 
Unemployment has been temporarilty expanded? Is two years a temporary expansion? How many of the 23 million U-6 are under employed? Is that the definition of liberal success?
I'm not sure if you really believe a conservative would of came in....ended the free fall and turned around the economy in 4 years but there a few European nations that had fiscal conservative individuals win government and they are seeing a deepening recession not the turnaround promosed by fiscal austerity.

I lived and worked during the 81-82 recession and it was leadership that brought us out of that recession not demonization of individual wealth creation and promotion of class warfare.

I wasn't alive then but isn't this idea that "not hurting rich people's feeling" kind of ridiculous?

Check out your history on those programs and then tell me why Medicare and SS are on budget items funded by the general revenue? Medicaid is a joint effort between the state and federal govt. what happens when funding from the Federal govt. runs out?
How exactly does funding from the government ever run out? US finances despite the rhetoric from the right are pretty much better than any Western Country. This idea that we're on the precipice of being Greece or some mess is just not factually true. The US has weathered this downturn pretty well compared to other nations.
 
I'm not sure if you really believe a conservative would of came in....ended the free fall and turned around the economy in 4 years but there a few European nations that had fiscal conservative individuals win government and they are seeing a deepening recession not the turnaround promosed by fiscal austerity.



I wasn't alive then but isn't this idea that "not hurting rich people's feeling" kind of ridiculous?


How exactly does funding from the government ever run out? US finances despite the rhetoric from the right are pretty much better than any Western Country. This idea that we're on the precipice of being Greece or some mess is just not factually true. The US has weathered this downturn pretty well compared to other nations.

Reagan did and since you weren't around you rely on what someone else tells you, I lived it, worked it and saw real leadership unlike what is happening today.

How does money for the govt ever run out? It never will, it will be printed or borrowed. Printed money makes your dollars worth less which is happening right now and that is driving up gasoline prices. If it is borrowed that is debt service which is now over 250 billion a year much of which is going to foreign countries. How does that help Americans?

Please tell me how borrowing and printing money helps the American economy?
 
Reagan did and since you weren't around you rely on what someone else tells you, I lived it, worked it and saw real leadership unlike what is happening today.
Sure you lived it I didn't. I still dont' think kissing rich people's asses makes the economy better. I do think there's are fundamentals more important than making bankers feel better about themselves.

How does money for the govt ever run out? It never will, it will be printed or borrowed. Printed money makes your dollars worth less which is happening right now and that is driving up gasoline prices. If it is borrowed that is debt service which is now over 250 billion a year much of which is going to foreign countries. How does that help Americans?
The majority of it is either going back to American companies are to government departments...like Social Security.

If gas prices were driven up by a devaluation for the dollar than it wouldn't be going up in all currencies for all countries.

Please tell me how borrowing and printing money helps the American economy?
Well it's funding government and government is funding programs that are necessary for the public so that's helping the economy. I'd like to point out the government is dropping bags of dollars off (if you're talking about QE3) in cities. It's buying assets at market value from banks and giving them dollars. It's basically just changing a less liquid asset...mortgages for a very liquid assets. That's all it's doing.
 
Sure you lived it I didn't. I still dont' think kissing rich people's asses makes the economy better. I do think there's are fundamentals more important than making bankers feel better about themselves.


The majority of it is either going back to American companies are to government departments...like Social Security.

If gas prices were driven up by a devaluation for the dollar than it wouldn't be going up in all currencies for all countries.


Well it's funding government and government is funding programs that are necessary for the public so that's helping the economy. I'd like to point out the government is dropping bags of dollars off (if you're talking about QE3) in cities. It's buying assets at market value from banks and giving them dollars. It's basically just changing a less liquid asset...mortgages for a very liquid assets. That's all it's doing.

What is preventing you from becoming rich? Ever look in the mirror? Could it be your attitude including jealousy and envy has something to do with it?

Gasoline is valued in U.S. dollars and when the dollar declines it affects prices in this country. Why do you care what other countries are paying for gasoline? Do you want to pay their gasoline taxes here?

I am still waiting for you to explain what is going to change from the last four years if Obama is re-elected? Do you really need or want a massive nanny state in this country? Whose responsibility is it for social programs, the federal bureaucrats or state, local, charities, and individuals? Ever hear of neighbor helping neighbor? How about self reliance? I posted a video about being an American, suggest you watch it in its entirety then get back to me
 
What is preventing you from becoming rich? Ever look in the mirror? Could it be your attitude including jealousy and envy has something to do with it?
You have no idea what my financial situation. We're talking about things in the context of policy and rhetoric and it never fails it turns into something dealing with envy. Do you think it's impossible for people well off and educated and doing well to believe that catering to the rich just isn't good public policy? That a lot of times catering to the interest of the rich might just be against the interest of middle and lower income individuals? I mean....for example bargaining with Pharmacutical companies over the price of drugs. For tax payers it would save billions. It would strengthen a strong popular social program. At the same time it would mean Pharmacuticals would get less money per drug from the government.

Isn't that a great example of basically a zero sum game where the "rich" benefit at the expense of society? Why is it impossible that the interest of the "rich" don't always coincide with the interst of most Americans?

Gasoline is valued in U.S. dollars and when the dollar declines it affects prices in this country. Why do you care what other countries are paying for gasoline? Do you want to pay their gasoline taxes here?
If the dollar is devalued that doesnt' change the price that everyone else pays...yet the price is rising in all countries....so doesnt' that kind of provide some evidence that it's other factors that have caused the price of gas to increase rather than American monetary policy?

I am still waiting for you to explain what is going to change from the last four years if Obama is re-elected? Do you really need or want a massive nanny state in this country? Whose responsibility is it for social programs, the federal bureaucrats or state, local, charities, and individuals? Ever hear of neighbor helping neighbor? How about self reliance? I posted a video about being an American, suggest you watch it in its entirety then get back to me

I think the economy will improve no matter who is in charge the next 4 years. The speed and what the recovery looks like may be different.

Charity doesn't cover all the needs of the poor. This idea that if the government steps back and stops helping the poor charity will take it's place is just not true. It wasn't true when the government didn't help the poor and it wouldn't be true now.
 
iliveonramen;1060921199]You have no idea what my financial situation. We're talking about things in the context of policy and rhetoric and it never fails it turns into something dealing with envy. Do you think it's impossible for people well off and educated and doing well to believe that catering to the rich just isn't good public policy? That a lot of times catering to the interest of the rich might just be against the interest of middle and lower income individuals? I mean....for example bargaining with Pharmacutical companies over the price of drugs. For tax payers it would save billions. It would strengthen a strong popular social program. At the same time it would mean Pharmacuticals would get less money per drug from the government
.

You are talking about something you know so little about, oh the youth of today. People doing well are normally very generous and give more to charity as evidenced by what happened during the Reagan years. You have so much faith in the Federal Govt. and the question is why? Why do you think our Founders put most of the power at the state level? Let me help you, it was closer to the people and if you let your state get out of control then that is your responsibility not someone else's in another state. Why should the people of TX fund your local social programs though a bloated federal govt. through a federal bureaucrat? The power of our economy rests with the consumer, not the federal govt.

Isn't that a great example of basically a zero sum game where the "rich" benefit at the expense of society? Why is it impossible that the interest of the "rich" don't always coincide with the interst of most Americans?

therein lies your problem we don't live in a zero sum economy, it is a growing economy or at least used to be. Obama is trying to change that by promotion of the nanny state and massive federal govt. growth.

You have such a negative opinion of the rich so why don't you become rich to change that perception?

If the dollar is devalued that doesnt' change the price that everyone else pays...yet the price is rising in all countries....so doesnt' that kind of provide some evidence that it's other factors that have caused the price of gas to increase rather than American monetary policy?

LOL, ok, so dropping value of the dollar hasn't increased gasoline prices and what we pay for crude oil? You really don't seem to understand how the economy works.



I think the economy will improve no matter who is in charge the next 4 years. The speed and what the recovery looks like may be different.

And why is that? What economic policy has Obama put in place to stimulate and grow the economy? You think small businesses are going to increase employment with the Obama tax policies in place along with Obamacare? Why don't you put all those liberal ideals in place by starting your own business. You know you can do that in this country?

Charity doesn't cover all the needs of the poor. This idea that if the government steps back and stops helping the poor charity will take it's place is just not true. It wasn't true when the government didn't help the poor and it wouldn't be true now.

So you believe sending money to a bureaucrat in D.C. covers all the needs of the poor? Explain when why we have record numbers on food stamps, 46 million below the poverty level, and over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assistance? Your faith in the federal govt. solving a social problem in your community is misguided.
 
I saw nothing about passing a budget without the House and they are AWOL.

The House has passed a budget every year, where is the Senate budget resolution? The total budget has to be approved by the entire Congress so where is the Senate alternative to the House's budget?
 
And you believe him? What did he say to win election the first time? How do you explain that after adding 5.4 trillion to the debt the numbers are worse today than when he took office? What has happened is we have a 3.8 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and 16 trillion dollar Federal debt that has more unemployed/under employed/discouraged along with almost record numbers on food stamps and in poverty. Why does he deserve four more years with that record?

As I said, more people losing their job= more people requiring government assistance (unemployment paychecks, food stamps=more Government spending. High unemployment leads to high underemployment. I could only find unemployment (U-3) and underemployment (U-6) rates until July (in a proper article), those being 8.5% and 15.3% respectively. From what I see, the underemployment rate in this recession is about twice that of the unemployment rate. Now, I believe in a slow but safe economic recovery (that is, one which will not go easily into recession), if the current trend is kept, unemployment should steadily go down to around 7% next year. Take into account that we currently are in an election year, so businesses don't invest and have plans ready in case either candidate wins, so it is highly possible that unemployment could drop even further.

My sources:

Which States Have Worst Underemployment? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Unemployed. Underemployed. Here. unemployment-situation-u3-u6-rates | No Job News NoJobsurvivor
Underemployment 19.8% in February, on Par With January
National Employment Monthly Update
 
As I said, more people losing their job= more people requiring government assistance (unemployment paychecks, food stamps=more Government spending. High unemployment leads to high underemployment. I could only find unemployment (U-3) and underemployment (U-6) rates until July (in a proper article), those being 8.5% and 15.3% respectively. From what I see, the underemployment rate in this recession is about twice that of the unemployment rate. Now, I believe in a slow but safe economic recovery (that is, one which will not go easily into recession), if the current trend is kept, unemployment should steadily go down to around 7% next year. Take into account that we currently are in an election year, so businesses don't invest and have plans ready in case either candidate wins, so it is highly possible that unemployment could drop even further.

My sources:

Which States Have Worst Underemployment? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Unemployed. Underemployed. Here. unemployment-situation-u3-u6-rates | No Job News NoJobsurvivor
Underemployment 19.8% in February, on Par With January
National Employment Monthly Update

The best source for data is bls.gov and you can click on the Home tab to start the navigation. There you can find the unemployment numbers and all the charts associated with unemployment including the U6 numbers. What should bother all are the numbers dropping out of the labor force which affects the unemployment rate. What we have now are people ignoring the record and buying the rhetoric. High unemployment, high under employment, low economic growth, large numbers below the poverty level and high numbers on food stamps all at a cost of 5.4 trillion added to the debt. Although not technically a recession we are close to a double dip
 
The best source for data is bls.gov and you can click on the Home tab to start the navigation. There you can find the unemployment numbers and all the charts associated with unemployment including the U6 numbers. What should bother all are the numbers dropping out of the labor force which affects the unemployment rate. What we have now are people ignoring the record and buying the rhetoric. High unemployment, high under employment, low economic growth, large numbers below the poverty level and high numbers on food stamps all at a cost of 5.4 trillion added to the debt. Although not technically a recession we are close to a double dip

Thanks for the info!

EDIT: Do you happen to know where I can find rates U-1 through U-6 for periods over five years? I found a table showing the rates, but it only covers August 2011 and April-August 2012 (Table A-15). EDIT: I also just found one that goes from 1994 to 2008.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils67.pdf
 
Last edited:
I was alive and working during the 81 recession, it was a minor bump in the road compared to this recession. There is no such thing as a 'typical' recession, or recessions are all alike. Fed Chairman Volcker is a hard reset the credit system BEFORE Reagan was elected to office.

Inflation, not a collapse of a ponzi scheme woven deep into the financial sector, was the start of the late 70's recession. Volcker set fed funds rate at 20%, effectively halting most borrowing in the private sector.

Deregulation of the banking industry started in 1980 just as the economy soured and banks rushed headlong into speculative loans, and lead soon to the collapse of over extended banks like Continental Illinois who was called 'to big to fail' and bailed out at a cost of 4.5 BILLION USD in 1984. By 1982 the FDIC was buying up assets, almost 800 MILLION USD worth. By '83 50 banks failed.

The Savings and Loans lost around 9 BILLION USD by '82. Government regulators were hamstrung by the White House refusing to allow them to expand personnel as the deregulation ballooned the used to be quiet and stable S&L sector.

by 1983 over 700 mergers occurred, total cost of the S&L mess was 160 BILLION USD.

Midterms saw the Democrats gaining the largest number of House seats since Watergate (26).

Reagan was forced to increase corporation taxes, a 3 year 100 BILLION USD tax hike over three years.

By election day unemployment was still 7.2%, but even though corporations had an INCREASE in their taxes their profits rose almost 30%.

All that is to say-

Too big to fail has been with us awhile

The stock market, housing, derivative market, mega computer shifts of money were not involved in the 1980-84 crisis.

Corporate taxes were INCREASED in a economic downturn but corporate profits were healthy even as the unemployment rate was lagging.

The concept of red ink to fix the financial problems was a Reagan concept backed by a Republican House.

Rampant speculation in the newly deregulated Banking and S&L crushed the private sector credit industry as the Administration refused to expand oversight to match the hugely expanded reach of banks and the S&Ls.

The 1980-84 recession was a bitch to live through for some folks, barely noticed by others and was more a test run on how to collapse an economy which was done in fine fashion 20 some years later.

But to be clear No President could have 'fixed' this collapse in 4 years, it reached through too many sectors at a time when we were already 11 or so TRILLION USD in debt from 'prosperity' years of 'conservative' policy :roll:
 
I was alive and working during the 81 recession, it was a minor bump in the road compared to this recession. There is no such thing as a 'typical' recession, or recessions are all alike. Fed Chairman Volcker is a hard reset the credit system BEFORE Reagan was elected to office.

Inflation, not a collapse of a ponzi scheme woven deep into the financial sector, was the start of the late 70's recession. Volcker set fed funds rate at 20%, effectively halting most borrowing in the private sector.

Deregulation of the banking industry started in 1980 just as the economy soured and banks rushed headlong into speculative loans, and lead soon to the collapse of over extended banks like Continental Illinois who was called 'to big to fail' and bailed out at a cost of 4.5 BILLION USD in 1984. By 1982 the FDIC was buying up assets, almost 800 MILLION USD worth. By '83 50 banks failed.

The Savings and Loans lost around 9 BILLION USD by '82. Government regulators were hamstrung by the White House refusing to allow them to expand personnel as the deregulation ballooned the used to be quiet and stable S&L sector.

by 1983 over 700 mergers occurred, total cost of the S&L mess was 160 BILLION USD.

Midterms saw the Democrats gaining the largest number of House seats since Watergate (26).

Reagan was forced to increase corporation taxes, a 3 year 100 BILLION USD tax hike over three years.

By election day unemployment was still 7.2%, but even though corporations had an INCREASE in their taxes their profits rose almost 30%.

All that is to say-

Too big to fail has been with us awhile

The stock market, housing, derivative market, mega computer shifts of money were not involved in the 1980-84 crisis.

Corporate taxes were INCREASED in a economic downturn but corporate profits were healthy even as the unemployment rate was lagging.

The concept of red ink to fix the financial problems was a Reagan concept backed by a Republican House.

Rampant speculation in the newly deregulated Banking and S&L crushed the private sector credit industry as the Administration refused to expand oversight to match the hugely expanded reach of banks and the S&Ls.

The 1980-84 recession was a bitch to live through for some folks, barely noticed by others and was more a test run on how to collapse an economy which was done in fine fashion 20 some years later.

But to be clear No President could have 'fixed' this collapse in 4 years, it reached through too many sectors at a time when we were already 11 or so TRILLION USD in debt from 'prosperity' years of 'conservative' policy :roll:

You sure you were in this country during that recession? I would love to have you start a thread so that I can set you straight because there is so much misinformation in your post but this isn't the place to discuss it. You don't seem to have a grasp on what actually went on during that recession nor the leadership that brought us out of it. The taxes increased were use taxes not income taxes and everyone suffered due to a 20 misery index
 
Well for part of it I was overseas.

However the economy wasn't gutting in 1980-84 like it was as BushII left the building. Huge swathes of our economy were tied into the collapse due to the continued trend of deregulation and refusal to hire enough 'cops' to watch all the sleight of hand transactions.

Corporations did great even as REAGAN INCREASED the corporate rate rate.

BILLIONS USD were pumped into the banks and S&Ls with 'conservative' approval.

Even with all of that unemployment was over 7% at re-election time but Reagan still won.

The misery from 1976-84 was from inflation and the Fed's pushing interest rates over 20%. Not a collapsed housing market, gutted shadow banking system, a stock market knocked back to Reagan Era, many people's retirement accounts torn in half, killed most small business credit, put many hard working, paid their bills folks underwater with their homes.
 
Well for part of it I was overseas.

However the economy wasn't gutting in 1980-84 like it was as BushII left the building. Huge swathes of our economy were tied into the collapse due to the continued trend of deregulation and refusal to hire enough 'cops' to watch all the sleight of hand transactions.

Corporations did great even as REAGAN INCREASED the corporate rate rate.

BILLIONS USD were pumped into the banks and S&Ls with 'conservative' approval.

Even with all of that unemployment was over 7% at re-election time but Reagan still won.

The misery from 1976-84 was from inflation and the Fed's pushing interest rates over 20%. Not a collapsed housing market, gutted shadow banking system, a stock market knocked back to Reagan Era, many people's retirement accounts torn in half, killed most small business credit, put many hard working, paid their bills folks underwater with their homes.

You couldn't be more wrong, the recession of 81-82 affected all Americans, how did the 2007-2009 recession affect you or all Americans? Higher interest rates, higher unemployment, higher inflation vs. almost zero interest rates, high unemployment, and almost no inflation, now tell me which one was worse on the American people

The taxes increased were use taxes all passed on to the consumer, income taxes were reduced putting more money into the hands of the people. If you didn't use the service you didn't pay the taxes.

The collapses housing market affected home owners that were selling their houses or purchased homes they couldn't afford. That isn't the majority in this country. The banking system was saved according to economists by TARP, a Bush program. I didn't support TARP nor the bailout of any private business. 401ks did take a hit but again that only affected people who were retiring and living off theri 401k's. Segments of the population were hurt but not the entire population like 81-82 recession at all.

Further you didn't hear Reagan demonizing individual wealth creation or any class, never attacked the producers, and promoted incentive which allowed the American people to succeed and benefit from their own success. His economy created 16 million jobs, doubled GDP, and increased tax revenue by 40%

Reagan showed leadership and Obama's record speaks for itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom