calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Churches. Remember the "clinging to their guns and religion" quote from Obamao? Well, they don't have much time, about a year and a half, to change America in their image. And it's all about defeating real America - the left's culture war is now, or maybe never. And, illegal immigration is their key to trying to win every election from now on. \http://nypost.com/2015/06/29/churches-are-the-lefts-next-target-in-the-gay-marriage-war/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Illegal immigrants are almost exclusively devout Catholics. Even if they got the right to vote, I doubt they would vote for anyone who attacked the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 How about these liberal targets, all tried or brought up... Liberals should revisit removing "In God We Trust" from our currency. A just cause. Truly offensive. There's also too many white guys on our paper money, that's racist. Lets "diversify" our currency and get rid of Jackson and put the face of some woman or black on that 20. A boy should be allowed to use the girls restroom if the boy feels he is a girl. Award the last place loser a trophy too. Its imperative kids maintain "self esteem". We need to stop disenfranchising blacks and name hurricanes after them as well. Notice hurricanes are given only white names. Astronomers need to stop referring to that outer space phenomena as the "black hole". That's racist. In Seattle they already banned the term "brown bag lunch". Its endless what liberals bitch and whine about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 You're babbling again Stewie. Haven't you used up your weekly quota for nonsensical meritless rants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Illegal immigrants are almost exclusively devout Catholics. Even if they got the right to vote, I doubt they would vote for anyone who attacked the church. The Obama administration has recruited to get as many people as possible on foodstamps and government assistance. Most people will vote with their economic situation. A party running on cutting entitlements is going to have a tough hill to climb even if we are 18 trillion in debt and cannot afford all our spending. Obama administration openly pushing food stamps to illegals; no citizenship required, no income status checkedhttp://www.naturalnews.com/040092_food_stamps_illegal_immigrants_Obama_administration.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Illegal immigrants are almost exclusively devout Catholics. Even if they got the right to vote, I doubt they would vote for anyone who attacked the church.They will vote for whoever offers the easiest entry and most benefits. Count on it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 You're babbling again Stewie. Haven't you used up your weekly quota for nonsensical meritless rants? Haha... you're right for a change, they were nonsensical. But meritless? Google each one, you're a big boy now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Styles Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 How about these liberal targets, all tried or brought up... Liberals should revisit removing "In God We Trust" from our currency. A just cause. Truly offensive. There's also too many white guys on our paper money, that's racist. Lets "diversify" our currency and get rid of Jackson and put the face of some woman or black on that 20. A boy should be allowed to use the girls restroom if the boy feels he is a girl. Award the last place loser a trophy too. Its imperative kids maintain "self esteem". We need to stop disenfranchising blacks and name hurricanes after them as well. Notice hurricanes are given only white names. Astronomers need to stop referring to that outer space phenomena as the "black hole". That's racist. In Seattle they already banned the term "brown bag lunch". Its endless what liberals bitch and whine about. Whew ! You did pretty well with that *itching and whining thing yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Styles Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 The Obama administration has recruited to get as many people as possible on foodstamps and government assistance. Most people will vote with their economic situation. A party running on cutting entitlements is going to have a tough hill to climb even if we are 18 trillion in debt and cannot afford all our spending. Obama administration openly pushing food stamps to illegals; no citizenship required, no income status checked http://www.naturalnews.com/040092_food_stamps_illegal_immigrants_Obama_administration.html Food stamps are a drop in the bucket when it comes to government spending. It's an okey doke Jedi mind trick to place the nations blames on poor people, while doing things like wasting billions contracting private companies to build rockets that blow up supplies being sent to a space station we share with the freaking russians.Yeah, just blame Maria with the EBT card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Food stamps are a drop in the bucket when it comes to government spending. It's an okey doke Jedi mind trick to place the nations blames on poor people, while doing things like wasting billions contracting private companies to build rockets that blow up supplies being sent to a space station we share with the freaking russians. Yeah, just blame Maria with the EBT card Spending on entitlements is the highest in American history. In 2010, entitlement spending had grown to be almost 100 times higher than it was in 1960; it has increased by an explosive 9.5 percent per year for 50 straight years. Entitlement transfer payments to individuals (such as for income, healthcare, age, and unemployment) have been growing twice as fast as per capita income for 20 years, totaling $2.2 trillion in 2010 alone—which was greater than the entire gross domestic product of Italy and roughly the same as the GDP of Great Britain. More Americans rely on government handouts than ever before. The United States is on the brink of disaster now: Half of all American households currently receive transfer payments from the government. According to the Census Bureau, only 30 percent of American households in the 1980s relied on any public assistance. The proportion of Americans accepting antipoverty aid has soared over the last 30 years. As of 2009, roughly 4 percent of Americans lived in public housing; 6 percent lived in households receiving means-tested cash assistance; 11 percent accepted food stamps; and almost 25 percent received Medicaid. As of 2009, Eberstadt estimates that a stunning 45 percent of all American children were receiving means-tested government aid. Out-of-control entitlements are a major threat to national security. Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, famously warned that our national debt is the biggest security threat we face. What he didn't say is that government spending on entitlements not only exceeds defense spending these days, it completely overwhelms it. In 2010, America spent well over three times as much on transfer payments to individuals than it did on its entire national security budget—including on both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If current trends continue under President Obama, entitlement spending is set to increase by more than $700 billion over the next four years; the current national cost of all defense and security programs is roughly $700 billion as well. That means it will take only one presidential term, Eberstadt writes, for the growth of entitlement spending to absorb the entire defense budget of the United States. (Is it warm in here or is it just me?) The explosive growth in entitlement spending, while well-intentioned and in many cases necessary, is bad for the economy and our workforce. Because many government benefits to individuals are in the form of cash, the share of government transfers as a percentage of personal income has grown over the last four decades, which means people are actually earning less of their incomes. Public assistance for retirement, income maintenance, and unemployment insurance has made it possible for a smaller percentage of adult men to be working today than at any time since the Great Depression. We can argue about which caused which, but the fact is that the growth of entitlement spending has coincided with an unprecedented decline in the number of working adult men over the last several decades. In fact, last year more Americans received a steady income from public assistance than were working in the construction, transport, and warehousing or information technology industries. In 2010, more Americans were getting disability checks from the government than were working for any U.S. manufacturer. (I'm thinking your blood pressure is going up now.) http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/12/19/the-shocking-truth-on-entitlements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I don't suppose the ever increasing wealth gap in this country combined with the erosion of the middle class has anything to do with that....? Nah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I don't suppose the ever increasing wealth gap in this country combined with the erosion of the middle class has anything to do with that....? Nah I am sure it does but why has the shrinking middle class and wage gap gotten worse under Obama? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/selfidentified_middle_class_radically_shrinks_under_obama.html http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/middle-class-hits-50-year-low-on-president-obamas-watch/ http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2013/01/middle-class-decline-under-obama-shown-in-5-charts-2482724.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 True enough that food stamps don't make a big dent in the budget. Also they produce a nice windfall for the farmers. The downside is a couple hundred bucks a week comes in handy to anybody whether you are destitute or not so those people must make a conscious decision to vote against someone whose handing you a little free money. And there are more and more and more of them every year. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I am sure it does but why has the shrinking middle class and wage gap gotten worse under Obama? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/selfidentified_middle_class_radically_shrinks_under_obama.html http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/middle-class-hits-50-year-low-on-president-obamas-watch/ http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2013/01/middle-class-decline-under-obama-shown-in-5-charts-2482724.html because rich people are investing their capital where labor markets are in their favor. Ie they don't have to pay shit. Even engineering jobs are going overseas where a Chinese or indian engineer can get paid 10-15k. There's no competing with that. So the bottom line is either you're an American company or you're not, if you don't want to be in this country because you feel you can get a better labor deal elsewhere....bon fucking voyage but don't expect to be treated like a real American company. Mylan is now experiencing that...they moved to Ireland or someplace like that. Now they're in a hostile bid takeover by Teva, a big Israeli firm. Now Mylan wants the U.S govt to help block the Teva takeover. Insanity. Literal insanity. The jews call it hutzpah. I mean seriously. Fuck right off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I think Perot had this right but instead of an immediate loss of US jobs it was more gradual but once it started it just kept gaining momentum like a ball rolling downhill. I am all for free trade but we have to have a level playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I am sure it does but why has the shrinking middle class and wage gap gotten worse under Obama? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/selfidentified_middle_class_radically_shrinks_under_obama.html http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/middle-class-hits-50-year-low-on-president-obamas-watch/ http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2013/01/middle-class-decline-under-obama-shown-in-5-charts-2482724.html It's gotten worse over the last couple of administration's. You believe the gap will cease to widen under the next president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 It's gotten worse over the last couple of administration's. You believe the gap will cease to widen under the next president? Having lived through the awful presidency of Jimmy Carter and the economic gloom of his administration I saw what the job creating policies of Reagan did after inheriting the mess left by Carter. It created an economic recovery that lasted well after his presidency. Jobs have been created under this administration but not nearly enough and the economic recovery after a recession has been the worst since WW2. So I see it as possible another president and administration can create an environment for job growth which is the key to everything. With strong job growth everything else falls right in place: At the end of the latest recession, private-sector employment stood at 108.4 million Americans. In April 2015, 70 months after the end, in June 2009, of the recession that Obama inherited, private-sector employment was 119.5 million. Over the same period, an average recovery would have pushed that figure to 125.2 million. Meanwhile, a recovery at the pace set by Ronald Reagan would have seen private-sector employment zoom to 131.5 million. As Representative Kevin Brady (R., Texas), vice chairman of the JEC, observed, “Instead of shrinking, the Obama recovery’s jobs gap got bigger for a fourth consecutive month and now stands at 5,730,000,” versus the average post-1960 recovery. “Compared with the Reagan recovery of the 1980s, the gap stands at 12,082,000.” Obama has a long way to go, if he wants to catch up with Reagan’s sterling performance, or at least lift himself to the average level. “Eliminating the Obama recovery’s private-sector jobs gap compared with the average of post-1960 recoveries by the end of 2016 would require the addition of 431,000 private-sector jobs in each of the next 20 months,” Brady calculates. “Closing the gap compared with the Reagan recovery would require 817,000 private-sector jobs in each of the next 20 months.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418693/reagan-still-beats-obamas-below-average-job-growth-deroy-murdock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 because rich people are investing their capital where labor markets are in their favor. Ie they don't have to pay shit. Even engineering jobs are going overseas where a Chinese or indian engineer can get paid 10-15k. There's no competing with that. So the bottom line is either you're an American company or you're not, if you don't want to be in this country because you feel you can get a better labor deal elsewhere....bon fucking voyage but don't expect to be treated like a real American company. Mylan is now experiencing that...they moved to Ireland or someplace like that. Now they're in a hostile bid takeover by Teva, a big Israeli firm. Now Mylan wants the U.S govt to help block the Teva takeover. Insanity. Literal insanity. The jews call it hutzpah. I mean seriously. Fuck right off. That's a cop out answer to the question. Were not rich people investing their capital where markets are in their favor under Bush as well? The primary reason US companies go abroad is because the US corporate tax rate is so damn high.. which if I'm not mistaken is the highest in the world. Taxation stifles business, and WAGES, therefore the economy suffers. It always has. That's a proven fact. So how is it that foreign companies can set up shop in the US and pay good wages? Hmmm...do they get some sort of tax break perhaps? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/business/18excerpt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/15/foreign-manufacturers-bringing-jobs-to-us/2070327/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 When the left starts taxing businesses for more and more money to buy dependency and approval from most of the slothly people in a country.... the businesses leave. The looney, money-grabbing, bitching left would have us be Greece. http://www.ibtimes.com/eurocrisis-big-business-leaving-greece-845269 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The answer is growing the pie. Reagan showed how it could be done. Why don't we learn from history and apply what works and disregard what proves not to work. Less taxes and not more has proven to work and grow the economy. The best way to get more tax revenue is through growth not heavy tax burdens. More taxation has never promoted economic growth. The Obama administration and it's failed liberal policies have given us the weakest economic recovery coming out of a recession since WW2 as well as plunging us into even more debt which is now18 trillion dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Having lived through the awful presidency of Jimmy Carter and the economic gloom of his administration I saw what the job creating policies of Reagan did after inheriting the mess left by Carter. It created an economic recovery that lasted well after his presidency. Jobs have been created under this administration but not nearly enough and the economic recovery after a recession has been the worst since WW2. So I see it as possible another president and administration can create an environment for job growth which is the key to everything. With strong job growth everything else falls right in place: At the end of the latest recession, private-sector employment stood at 108.4 million Americans. In April 2015, 70 months after the end, in June 2009, of the recession that Obama inherited, private-sector employment was 119.5 million. Over the same period, an average recovery would have pushed that figure to 125.2 million. Meanwhile, a recovery at the pace set by Ronald Reagan would have seen private-sector employment zoom to 131.5 million. As Representative Kevin Brady (R., Texas), vice chairman of the JEC, observed, “Instead of shrinking, the Obama recovery’s jobs gap got bigger for a fourth consecutive month and now stands at 5,730,000,” versus the average post-1960 recovery. “Compared with the Reagan recovery of the 1980s, the gap stands at 12,082,000.” Obama has a long way to go, if he wants to catch up with Reagan’s sterling performance, or at least lift himself to the average level. “Eliminating the Obama recovery’s private-sector jobs gap compared with the average of post-1960 recoveries by the end of 2016 would require the addition of 431,000 private-sector jobs in each of the next 20 months,” Brady calculates. “Closing the gap compared with the Reagan recovery would require 817,000 private-sector jobs in each of the next 20 months.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418693/reagan-still-beats-obamas-below-average-job-growth-deroy-murdock While I appreciate the shedding light on the manic highs and lows of the economy since the 80's, you've addressed overall economic growth and unemployment rate. Contributing factors to an extent, however my point is to highlight the income inequality in this great country of ours - a gap that grew as much as shrank while under Ronny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And FiguresWhen President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse. All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks. President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy: 1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%. 2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%. 3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value. 4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%. These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months. During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989. The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession. Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade. In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/ By far the best President in our history. God bless him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Reagan started the deficit spending bubble that worked great in the short term but even back then was called out, by other republicans as having devastating long term effects. We're in it now. I don't think reagan was a bad guy, no more or less than any of these guys. But for that fact alone, just to beat the Soviets...he put us on teh path to utter destruction. He is the reason for this out of control free market we have today that is completely unsustainable. Of course it wasn't Reagans idea he just listened to the mega corporate interests that owned him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.