After 30 months: Reaganomics A+, Obamanomics F-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5b/Irontriangle.PNG/400px-Irontriangle.PNG

How does my theory have holes? Who do you think controls the "SNAP". J.P.Morgan Bank and other major banks, which got bailed out by Senator Obama under TAARP from President Bush, but was rejected by a well known Socialist named Bernie Sanders. Obama is no socialist, if he was. He would opposed the Bailout. He can give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about the middle class and lower income class.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkqb1pQrCcg&feature=related"]Bernie Sanders "You're a socialist, Larry [Kudlow]" w Allard - YouTube[/ame]

They get a 1-2% payment for every time your SNAP card is swapped at the grocery or food market. The tax cuts for those incomes under 75k because they tend to spend and spend to keep the machine well oiled. Unemployment benefits, come out of your check and mine and we can use them if our employer either fires us/business close down/ or working part time but want to work full time, you get supplement about 20+ more hours at the same rate.

Who cares about income levels, if you are still bound by a piece a paper is kinda pathetic.

How Obama not a NeoCon? Still in Afg/Iraq/Libya/Yemen/Somolia while still having the Bush/Clinton/HW/Reagan/Carter/Nixon/LBJ Tax Cuts. Who is paying for this war? Everyone who doesn't take their tax cut. Obama is just a puppet for the M.I.C. Its a well known fact. I'm quite disappointed with Obama is supporting the War Machine.

But whatever, you only see what you want to see.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5b/Irontriangle.PNG/400px-Irontriangle.PNG

How is he a socialist? He helping the group who create this problem which was the Wall Street campaigners. Hence the richest Americans. I have heard that companies have about 1 trillion, not 3 trillion.
"Proponents say the move would bring as much as $1 trillion into the United States, spur big companies to create jobs and give Treasury more revenue to work with to slash mounting federal deficits.

But tax holiday opponents, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, are skeptical. They say a similar holiday in 2004 didn't spur companies to hire more or grow."
Why would someone want to invest in America when their no demand. You have no idea of what socialism truly is. You still believe in the White vs Black speech. Here is another video link from "The Network." That shows Companies really have control of your life.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk"]Network - Money speech - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkqb1pQrCcg&feature=related"]Bernie Sanders "You're a socialist, Larry [Kudlow]" w Allard - YouTube[/ame]

The Super Rich make their money like me and you? LOLOLOL. They make their money by devarites. They know how to play the system and will keep the system running the same way. I'm more than willing to put a 5% tax on Devarities if you want to work the old fashion way. But I have to go, I got some Spanish homework to finish then my second job tonight.

 

Then you aren't looking.

That you aren't does not belie the fact you are spouting it.

Yes, Bush gave in to the Democrats tax increases and their promise of spending cuts they never passed.

You give him credit for just watching? While ignoring the fact he opposed and fought the measures that brought them about. That's clever giving him credit for the battle he lost.

When they pushed lenders to loan money to people who could not afford it to buy houses they could not afford and then said they would guaranty the loans and Freddie and Fannie would buy them up.

When you know the difference between deficits and debt let me know.

 

So did you vote for Republicans who would have passed HIS spending request and recessions which could have brought about a surplus or for the Democrats who opposed his budgets and recessions preventing a surplus?

 

Oh the hyperbole. It is undeniable fact that had congress accepted Reagans spending request we could have had the budget in surplus. So did you vote for the Democrats who fought such measures of did you support Reagans efforts to curb spending?

 

So when you runs deficits month in and month out, that doesn't add to the national debt?

 

Reagan deficits. 5% of GDP. Fixed inflation. Fixed interest rates. Fixed unemployment. Rebuilt military. Made country a military and economic powerhouse again.

Obama deficits. 8% of GDP. Made everything worse. A joke.

More contrasting results coming Nov 2012

 

Yes - running deficits for 30 years have really made the US a powerhouse again!

Come Nov 2012, Ubumba will be gone and the next puppet will be in come Jan 2013.

But nothing will change - just more deficits (thats if the dollar doesn't collapse by then!)

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Untill this starts runing backwards, it doesn't matter one iota who is president.

We are doomed to fail.

 

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress


Here is telling mess on the Reagan\Bush years:

Compare the Reagan\Bush years and all the other presidents form them before WWII.

They are the ones who started up done this freakin mess we are in. And no presdient since has helped out!

 

Where did you get that idea?

 

Pick one, budget deficits over which Congress and in part the President have annual input and direction or debt which includes mandated spending not under the budget deficits. You can't mix the two.

 

hmm....

My whole beef is, since Reagan, every president has run deficits that is our of control.

You stated: ' When you know the difference between deficits and debt let me know'

I asked; 'So when you runs deficits month in and month out, that doesn't add to the national debt'

So answer the question: 'So when you runs deficits month in and month out, that doesn't add to the national debt'

 

Ya, mandated spending went sky high after Reagan took office

 

"Presidents" don't run deficits. Their policies can have effects on the economy, their influenced is governed by the make up of congress. The government runs deficits, how those occur depends on the situations.

Yes much of the debt is determined by entitlement spending which is not budgeted every year and even when we run annual budget deficits that does not mean that month to month every month it is in deficit.

First we have to get control of the budget deficits then we can work on the debt.

 

He actually slowed the growth of SS spending, Gingrich and Kasich forced Clinton to sign welfare reform to slow that growth and Bush43 tried to get SS reform rolling but the Dems killed that.

 

I honestly never understood how Gramm Leach Bliley was supposed to somehow cause the financial crisis. It seems like it helped keep things from getting worse. By allowing Banks and Investment houses to merge it allowed Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch.

 

Having lived through both, I can say that trying to find a job in 1983 was no picnic.

 

Fascinating. I'm playing less for gas and milk than I was a few years ago. And many other products. You must not buy much stuff.

What does that have to do with my post?

 

what the hell is a F- lol lol

 

Stayed with the status quo? What a great (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea. Why didn't Obama do that?

January 2009

Job loss: Worst in 34 years
Employers slashed 598,000 more jobs in January [2009] as unemployment rate climbed to 7.6%.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market.

The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Market players were also disappointed by reports that U.S. home prices fell 8.7% year-over-year in November, U.S. housing starts fell 15.5% in December, and weekly initial jobless claims rose 62,000 to 589,000.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090122_192905.htm

On Wednesday, the 30-stock Dow Jones industrial average finished with a loss of 248.42 points, or 2.94%, to 8,200.

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090114_103250.htm

598,000 Jobs Shed In Brutal January
Unemployment Hits 7.6% as Downturn Picks Up Steam

The need for progress on those fronts seemed more important than ever yesterday, as the Labor Department announced that conditions worsened more than expected last month. The nation's employers shed 598,000 jobs, the most since 1974, driving the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent from 7.2 percent. If the jobless rate keeps rising at the pace it has for the past two months, it will hit double digits in summer and reach its highest rate since the Great Depression by the fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020601156.html

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: FOURTH QUARTER 2008 (PRELIMINARY)
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 [later revised to 7.0] percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp408p.pdf[/QUOTE]

Continued Unemployment Claims at Record High
In the week ending Jan. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 588,000, an increase of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 585,000.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/continued-unemployment-claims-at-record.html​

Yep. All Obama had to do was maintain the status quo and everything would be just peachy.

Our conservative friends write the silliest things.

 

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."

- H.L. Mencken

It seems a near perfect characterization of the simplistic answers Conservatives offer and demand.

 

No more than you, Reagan and his initial band of since-disgraced supply-side advisors were simply clueless on the economy -- as bad as or worse than the idiotic Bush-43 gang. And they proved that fast enough, didn't they. Inheriting the aftershocks at the tail end of an oil supply crisis, they managed to "rein in" inflation by causing what was then the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Yes, that's become a Republican tradition now. Heavy industry simply died. Unemployment sudddenly shot over 10% and stayed there for ten straight months. And holy cow...those tax cuts caused reveneues to fall and deficits to grow. Supply-side economics didn't work. There was no voodoo in voodoo economics. To his credit, Reagan was at least bright enough to do a 180, getting rid of his supply-side advisors, wiping out the final third of his tax cuts while passing tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. Those helped some, but since all that military/SDI adventurism was increasing spending by better than 8% per year, receipts had no hope of catching up to outlays and that "balance the budget in three years" hokum of his never came close to being realized.

 

I doubt you can appreciate the degree of laughter this elicited.

The Congressional apple never falls far from the Presidential budget tree. As you've been shown previously (but of course continue to ignore), over his eight years in office, Congress added the grand total of six-tenths of 1% to the spending that Reagan himself requested, and the bulk of that came in his final two years when both the House and Senate were under Democratic control. (Republicans had controlled the Senate in Reagan's first six years.) Your posts are flights of pure right-wing fancy and imagination. Any resemblance to actual facts or to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

I voted as fact and reason directed me to. You should try that sometime.

 

A true free market is social Darwnism. It does certain things well, but I cannot condone it on an ethical level.