White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires (Continued)

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Well if nothing else, you take orders well.

Click to expand...

Its fun seeing someone who supports the collectivist mentality calling someone else an "order taker"

pbrauer said:

Who killed the economy before Obama even took office?

Private sector jobs gains/losses

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008 Gain/ Loss	4	-128	-87	-186	-240	-217	-265	-317	-434	-491	-787	-636
2009 Gain/ Loss	-841	-721	-787	-773	-326	-438	-287	-215	-213	-250	-34	-102
2010 Gain/ Loss	-42	-21	144	229	48	65	93	110	109	143	128	167
2011 Gain/ Loss	94	261	219	241	99	75	156	17

Click to expand...

WE nave a net job loss since Obama took office so tell the rest of the story. Obama has a very low approval rating for a reason and it wasn't because he has done his job.

pbrauer said:

Who killed the economy before Obama even took office?

Private sector jobs gains/losses

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008 Gain/ Loss	4	-128	-87	-186	-240	-217	-265	-317	-434	-491	-787	-636
2009 Gain/ Loss	-841	-721	-787	-773	-326	-438	-287	-215	-213	-250	-34	-102
2010 Gain/ Loss	-42	-21	144	229	48	65	93	110	109	143	128	167
2011 Gain/ Loss	94	261	219	241	99	75	156	17

Click to expand...

In case you forgot, the calculations for counting the unemployed changed in 1994 as the discouraged workers were dropped from the roles and the percentages. The real number should be the number employed so here they are for Reagan, GW Bush and Obama during their first term

Let's see if you can figure out why Obama's approval ratings are at record lows

Employment by month

Reagan

Jan 1981 99.9 million
Sept 1983 101.6 Million

Net +1.7 million

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223

GW Bush

January 2001 137.8
Sept 2003 137.6

Net -.2 million

2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125

Obama

January 2009 142.2 Million
Sept 2011 139.6 Million

Net -2.6 million

2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334 139296 139627

TurtleDude said:

all that pork dems loaded up his demands for more defense spending had nothing to do with that did it

Click to expand...

It is of no secret that the Reagan administration implemented an economic policy referred to as military keynesianism. With all the education you feel the need to brag about on a message board; this should have been obvious.

Wow, has this thread gone silent! Posting actual data seems to do that with Obama supporters so why stop now. The following comes from BLS and shows employment at the beginning and end of each term and my previous post showed employment during the same period of time for each President's term, Reagan, GW Bush, and Obama. Now here are the employment numbers for the entire term for Reagan and GW Bush along wiith the Obama performance for over 2 1/2 years. Leadership plays a role here and shows just how poor Obama's leadership skills are

Employment numbers

Reagan January 1981-January 1989 99.9 116.7
GW Bush January 2001-January 2009 137.8 142.2
Obama January 2009-Sept 2011 142.4 139.6

Goldenboy219 said:

It is of no secret that the Reagan administration implemented an economic policy referred to as military keynesianism. With all the education you feel the need to brag about on a message board; this should have been obvious.

Click to expand...

Call it whatever you want. The net result was both a holding of the deficit at around 4-5% of GDP (some years slightly above, some below):

Well, let’s take a look at the Reagan legacy on federal spending and deficits. In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP. (The economy was also a basket case, which is when you would expect budget deficits to be at their worse.) In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983.

more:RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits by John McIntyre

Click to expand...

........ and most importantly, he got results. An expanded military, helping prompt the fall of the Soviet Union, and a robust economy upon which the country did quite well in the 90's.

Obama now has us up over 7% deficit to GDP, and more importantly, no positive results. Just a deeper hole. He has to go. All this liberal jackass policy has to go.

Eighty Deuce said:

Call it whatever you want. The net result was both a holding of the deficit at around 4-5% of GDP (some years slightly above, some below):



........ and most importantly, he got results. An expanded military, helping prompt the fall of the Soviet Union, and a robust economy upon which the country did quite well in the 90's.

Obama now has us up over 7% deficit to GDP, and more importantly, no positive results. Just a deeper hole. He has to go. All this liberal jackass policy has to go.

Click to expand...

The difference is, we are just recovering from a serious financial crisis which means that people and firms are in a deleveraging mode.

I feel like we are in a game of "Clue". "Who KILLED the economy!?!?" It was TAFT, with the noose! NO, FDR with the kitchen knife! No, no, no...clearly, it was Obama with the lamp! Uh UH, it was BUSH, with the revolver!


At least we can all agree our economy is messed up. What do we intend to do about it? Tow party lines, repeat party dogma, blame game, keep our heads turn back behind us....or actually constructively seek a solution?

KevinKohler said:

I feel like we are in a game of "Clue". "Who KILLED the economy!?!?" It was TAFT, with the noose! NO, FDR with the kitchen knife! No, no, no...clearly, it was Obama with the lamp! Uh UH, it was BUSH, with the revolver!


At least we can all agree our economy is messed up. What do we intend to do about it? Tow party lines, repeat party dogma, blame game, keep our heads turn back behind us....or actually constructively seek a solution?

Click to expand...

The solution is to put a positive leader in the WH and not a community organizer, someone like Reagan who unleashed the private sector and individual entrepreneur and individual wealth creator. Today we have a community agitator who doesn't know how to lead. When was the last positive message from this President? I keep hearing anger, divisiveness, and promotion of class warfare. His effort to blame everyone else but himself isn't leadership, it is passing the buck and sends the wrong message.

I lived and worked during the Reagan years, a time when we hade a misery index of 19.33 with high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest rates. Reagan took charge, appealed to the American people, made tough choices, spent a lot of time convincing the American people that they were the solution not the problem and the way out is their efforts not the government's efforts. He was a positive force changing attitudes. Compare that to today.

Conservative said:

The solution is to put a positive leader in the WH and not a community organizer, someone like Reagan who unleashed the private sector and individual entrepreneur and individual wealth creator. .

Click to expand...

Under Reagan debt to GDP increased by over 20 % points

(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)

So Sheik, you were quick to point out that my 38% JAR was out of date and you called that a lie and not knowing what I am talking about. Here are the latest numbers from Gallup. What say you now?

Gallup

10/11 - 10/13 1500 A 38 54 -16

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

winston53660 said:

Under Reagan debt to GDP increased by over 20 % points

Roosevelt	D	1941–1945	50.4%	117.5%	+203	+67.1%	D	D
Roosevelt/Truman	D	1945–1949	117.5%	93.1%	-8	-24.4%	79th D, 80th R	79th D, 80th R
Harry Truman	D	1949–1953	93.1%	71.4%	+13	-21.7%	D	D
Dwight Eisenhower	R	1953–1957	71.4%	60.4%	+6	-11.0%	83rd R, 84th D	83rd R, 84th D
Dwight Eisenhower	R	1957–1961	60.4%	55.2%	+20	-5.2%	D	D
Kennedy/Johnson	D	1961–1965	55.2%	46.9%	+30	-8.3%	D	D
Lyndon Johnson	D	1965–1969	46.9%	38.6%	+43	-8.3%	D	D
Richard Nixon	R	1969–1973	38.6%	35.6%	+101	-3.0%	D	D
Nixon/Ford	R	1973–1977	35.6%	35.8%	+177	+0.2%	D	D
Jimmy Carter	D	1977–1981	35.8%	32.5%	+288	-3.3%	D	D
Ronald Reagan	R	1981–1985	32.5%	43.8%	+823	+11.3%	D	R
Ronald Reagan	R	1985–1989	43.8%	53.1%	+1,050	+9.3%	D	99th R, 100th D
George H. W. Bush	R	1989–1993	53.1%	66.1%	+1,483	+13.0%	D	D
Bill Clinton	D	1993–1997	66.1%	65.4%	+1,018	-0.7%	103rd D, 104th R	103rd D, 104th R
Bill Clinton	D	1997–2001	65.4%	56.4%	+401	-9.0%	R	R
George W. Bush	R	2001–2005	56.4%	63.5%	+2,135	+7.1%	R	107th Split, 108 R
George W. Bush	R	2005–2009	63.5%	84.2%	+3,971	+20.7%	109th R, 110th D	109th R, 110th D
Barack Obama	D	2009–2010	84.2%	93.2%	+1,653	+9.0%	111th D, 112th R	D

U.S. president Party Years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt
(in Billions of $) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points ) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)

(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)

Click to expand...

Yeah, here we go again and here you go again. The Reagan increase in debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion compared to the Obama increase in debt from 10.6 trillion to 14.8 trillion? Which one is worse? In the real world 1.7 trillion added to the debt has a lower debt service than 4.2 trillion added to the debt. Isn't that true in Northern TX?

Conservative said:

Yeah, here we go again and here you go again. The Reagan increase in debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion compared to the Obama increase in debt from 10.6 trillion to 14.8 trillion? Which one is worse?

Click to expand...

The Reagan increase as of today.

In the real world 1.7 trillion added to the debt has a lower debt service than 4.2 trillion added to the debt. Isn't that true in Northern TX?

Click to expand...

There ya go again try to compare real and nominal numbers.:lamo

winston53660 said:

The Reagan increase as of today.




There ya go again try to compare real and nominal numbers.:lamo

Click to expand...

And there you go ignoring reality and relevance because that is what liberals do, distort the numbers for their own personal gain. The debt during Reagan's term was in 80's dollars not today's dollars and debt service was the same in 80's dollars not today's dollars so your comparision is typical liberal bs.

Conservative said:

The solution is to put a positive leader in the WH and not a community organizer, someone like Reagan who unleashed the private sector and individual entrepreneur and individual wealth creator. Today we have a community agitator who doesn't know how to lead. When was the last positive message from this President? I keep hearing anger, divisiveness, and promotion of class warfare. His effort to blame everyone else but himself isn't leadership, it is passing the buck and sends the wrong message.

I lived and worked during the Reagan years, a time when we hade a misery index of 19.33 with high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest rates. Reagan took charge, appealed to the American people, made tough choices, spent a lot of time convincing the American people that they were the solution not the problem and the way out is their efforts not the government's efforts. He was a positive force changing attitudes. Compare that to today.

Click to expand...

To me, that's a very short sighted answer. How many years ago was reagan president? And look where we are now. No thanks. No, the problem isn't who is president, or who is senator, or who is supreme court justice, it's all of them together. Change one piece of an engine out, like a cam, but make no changes to the rest, it's not going to yield very good results. It's an entire system wide problem we face, imo, and one man, even Reagan reborn, would likely do more long term harm then good.

KevinKohler said:

To me, that's a very short sighted answer. How many years ago was reagan president? And look where we are now. No thanks. No, the problem isn't who is president, or who is senator, or who is supreme court justice, it's all of them together. Change one piece of an engine out, like a cam, but make no changes to the rest, it's not going to yield very good results. It's an entire system wide problem we face, imo, and one man, even Reagan reborn, would likely do more long term harm then good.

Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who wasn't around during the Reagan years. Why do you have such a problem keeping more of what you make and benefiting from your own efforts? No thanks? interesting, I never did better than I did during the Reagan years because I was rewarded for my efforts. Do you understand incentive for hard work?

Positive leadership helps form human behavior and that is the difference between the Reagan Leaderhip and lack of Obama leadership. Not sure what you think the solution is but it is obvious that Obama doesn't have a clue. I encourage you to actually look at the results of the Reagan years by listening to his speeches and looking at what he proposed. What is there to not like about his efforts where everyone benefited not just a few.

Spoken like someone who wasn't around during the Reagan years. Why do you have such a problem keeping more of what you make and benefiting from your own efforts? No thanks? interesting, I never did better than I did during the Reagan years because I was rewarded for my efforts. Do you understand incentive for hard work?

Click to expand...

People work hard at McDonalds and I don't see much incentive there for people to work hard. Stop talking about how great Reagen was, he was a puppet for big corporations and nothing else.

Conservative said:

Yeah, here we go again and here you go again. The Reagan increase in debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion compared to the Obama increase in debt from 10.6 trillion to 14.8 trillion? Which one is worse? In the real world 1.7 trillion added to the debt has a lower debt service than 4.2 trillion added to the debt. Isn't that true in Northern TX?

Click to expand...

in 1941 the US debt was 4.7 billion. In 1949 the debt was 274 billion. Now in the real world the debt service on 269.3 billion is a lot less than 1.7 trillion.............

Jryan said:

People work hard at McDonalds and I don't see much incentive there for people to work hard. Stop talking about how great Reagen was, he was a puppet for big corporations and nothing else.

Click to expand...

No doubt is that is what you see but what you see isn't reality. McDonalds promotes from within and that creates opportunities for people who may lack opportunity. McDonalds offers education reimbursement, a competitive wage with most well above minimum wage, and offers healthcare to all employees. Your comments show your youth and inexperience. Hope I am around to see you mature.

winston53660 said:

in 1941 the US debt was 4.7 billion. In 1949 the debt was 274 billion. Now in the real world the debt service on 269.3 billion is a lot less than 1.7 trillion.............

Click to expand...

You raised the issue of the Obama debt and put it in terms of current dollars. Don't see you doing that with 1941 debt or 1949 debt as if even that is relevant today. what was the debt service on the 2.6 trillion debt of which 1.7 trillion happened during the Reagan years? Today we have a 14.8 trillion dollar debt of which 4.2 trillion has been added by Obama. What is the debt service on that debt. Why is that even an issue today other than to divert from the Obama record. You want badly to divert to Reagan. Don't blame you but that is a waste of time, Reagan won't be on the ballot in 2012, the Obama record will be. Your apparent support for Obama says a lot about you.

Conservative said:

You raised the issue of the Obama debt and put it in terms of current dollars.

Click to expand...

uhmmm no I did not. I put it in terms of a debt to GDP ratio. You are the one that compared Reagan to Obama in nominal dollars. I simply did the same with the time period from 1941 to 1949.

Don't see you doing that with 1941 debt or 1949 debt as if even that is relevant today. what was the debt service on the 2.6 trillion debt of which 1.7 trillion happened during the Reagan years? Today we have a 14.8 trillion dollar debt of which 4.2 trillion has been added by Obama.

Click to expand...

You insist on making the same fallacious argument over and over:lamo

Why is that even an issue today other than to divert from the Obama record.

Click to expand...

The Obama record was clearly stated in the table I posted.

You want badly to divert to Reagan. Don't blame you but that is a waste of time, Reagan won't be on the ballot in 2012, the Obama record will be. Your apparent support for Obama says a lot about you.

Click to expand...

YOU BROUGHT UP REAGAN. I just simply let you know how much the debt to GDP ratio increased.

winston53660 said:

uhmmm no I did not. I put it in terms of a debt to GDP ratio. You are the one that compared Reagan to Obama in nominal dollars. I simply did the same with the time period from 1941 to 1949.



You insist on making the same fallacious argument over and over:lamo



The Obama record was clearly stated in the table I posted.



YOU BROUGHT UP REAGAN. I just simply let you know how much the debt to GDP ratio increased.

Click to expand...

What I continue to see is your opinion which I believe is wrong. Believe that most people today would take Reagan in a heartbeat over the disaster in the WH right now but I could be wrong. Tried to tell people about the lack of leaddership shown in the Obama resume but they still bought the rhetoric. Most realize they made a mistake

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Notice that 38% Gallup number again?

Conservative said:

What I continue to see is your opinion which I believe is wrong.

Click to expand...

Wait a second, the debt to GDP ratio going up 20+% points under Reagan is an opinion?

winston53660 said:

Wait a second, the debt to GDP ratio going up 20+% points under Reagan is an opinion?

Click to expand...

I will take you at your word that it is fact however it is irrelevant, the benefits outweighed the costs and the debt service was less than the 4.2 trillion Obama has added today just like the 17 million net job growth Reagan had after losing jobs the first year vs. the net job losses of Obama's

Conservative said:

I will take you at your word that it is fact however it is irrelevant, the benefits outweighed the costs and the debt service was less than the 4.2 trillion Obama has added today just like the 17 million net job growth Reagan had after losing jobs the first year vs. the net job losses of Obama's

Click to expand...

What matters is the cost as a percentage of GDP -- not the raw numbers. :roll:

But it's interesting that you think that the benefits of massive deficit spending outweighed the costs under Reagan. How do you know that things wouldn't have been much better without all that unpaid-for spending? Spending that we're still paying interest on, btw.

What it all boils down to for you is Republican/Democrat. If a Republican does it it's awesome. If a Democrat does the same thing it's criminally negligent.