Obama's term looks to be a one time disaster worse than Carter even.

[pageyjim]

Reagan moved us from being a creditor nation to the largest debtor nation, moved us from a manufacturing nation to a consumer based economy. Which is at the core of our problem today. Increased the debt 450%, job growth under him just kept up with the increase in population. Unemployment was 7.1% when he came into office and was 9.5% 2-3 years later. If you were alive then you should know this. If not you should know it anyway. Learn some history.
"Squandered" lol Clinton ran a surplus LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

GlennAC
How about those facts. You make a post with a cute poster and yet say nothing. Or should I say "nada"? That is for our Spanish speaking friends.

[daytonafan]

GlennAC
How about those facts. You make a post with a cute poster and yet say nothing. Or should I say "nada"? That is for our Spanish speaking friends.

Hey Pagey, are you really going to stick with that article as an indictment of Reagan's presidency? Did you read the whole thing or just the deficit parts? Were you alive in the late 70's and early 80's?

You can choose to explain yourself if you wish or you can stick with Wilkipedia.

70% marginal tax rate???? I guess the money is in better hands in Washington DC than in the hands of those who actually earned it.

[pageyjim]

Hey Pagey, are you really going to stick with that article as an indictment of Reagan's presidency? Did you read the whole thing or just the deficit parts? Were you alive in the late 70's and early 80's?

You can choose to explain yourself if you wish or you can stick with Wilkipedia.

70% marginal tax rate???? I guess the money is in better hands in Washington DC than in the hands of those who actually earned it.

Everything I said is true and I could have added more, no explaination needed. And yes I was alive and even if I wasn't I research and learn. Facts are facts wherever they're from as long as they are facts. Do I have to post multible credible sources now lol.

[RoBoTeq]

Geee whiz. At this point, can you name any DEMOCRAT that's been worse? (For you Dems, Bush jr. was Not a Democrat and No Mater What You Think, He will be AHEAD of Obama) Yes sir, we all "thought" Carter was a Dufuss and that Billy would have done better (heck yea, Billy Beer). From a race standpoint I really hate Yo'Bama is dragging up the bottom since it's always going to be a Raciest thing. Not the Color of the Person But the Actions!

At this point I'm just hoping that we can survive the rest of his Term. It really looks pretty scary to me. We are going to Suffer for years after he's gone from policies and Idiots that he has put in positions. I'm still appalled at the amount of people who were fooled during the election.






Almost make me Wish for Interest Rates of the Carter Years! CD's are currently paying 1%!!!!!

The interest rate issue does go both ways. Even though it was a lot more difficult to get a mortgage, we did get it at 4.875%

[EugeneTheJeep]

What your joking aren't you? Who could ever imagine the unemployment rate going down under Obama? Other than a massive socialized government work program with minimum wage and the whole country up in arms. 5% would be a miracle with the country screwed up so bad right now and getting worse with his commie bills. Even Regan would have a hard time getting it that low that soon. Thank you, thank you very much

Come 2011 we are going to have Mega tax increases, and the can only lead to mega unemployment.

[pageyjim]

The interest rate issue does go both ways. Even though it was a lot more difficult to get a mortgage, we did get it at 4.875%

Well you guys are getting a little better. That big posting by RoBo and all he can allude to is one fact about interest rates. Usually it's a posting just as large with no facts only name calling etc. But of course had to do some of that too.

[RoBoTeq]

Well you guys are getting a little better. That big posting by RoBo and all he can allude to is one fact about interest rates. Usually it's a posting just as large with no facts only name calling etc. But of course had to do some of that too.

Didn't your mama ever teach you that if you can't say something nice about someone that you should say notion at all? I don't indulge in name calling. I simply accurately describe you idiots.

[printer2]

In case one wonders whether PPP’s sample is to blame, the partisan split favors Democrats by five points, 39/34. That’s probably overstating the actual size of the gap and the percentage of Democrats in the general population, which means that the independents got short shrift as well. Also note that this poll surveyed registered voters, not likely voters — a sampling technique that would tend to favor Democrats and Obama a little more."

Q13 Would you describe yourself as a liberal,
moderate, or conservative?
Liberal .................................................. ........... 19%
Moderate.......................................... ............... 38%
Conservative...................................... ............. 43%


Q15 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If you are a
Republican, press 2. If you are an independent
or identify with another party, press 3.
Democrat .................................................. ...... 39%
Republican........................................ .............. 34%
Independent/Other.......................................... 27%

Not many liberals in the crowd. Maybe there are far fewer in the Democrats than one would think.

[daytonafan]

Everything I said is true and I could have added more, no explaination needed. And yes I was alive and even if I wasn't I research and learn. Facts are facts wherever they're from as long as they are facts. Do I have to post multible credible sources now lol.

Yes! Facts are facts. I couldn't agree more. I am just asking if you are going to stick with this article to make your point.

I will ask again. Did you read the entire article or just copy and paste?

I am giving you a chance to save face here.

[printer2]

Percent increase
..................Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP

1978-1981....Carter........17.2%.....-0.4%.......9.4%
1982-1985....Reagan......14.5%......49.0%.....11.2%
1986-1989....Reagan.......7.4%.......40.2%.....15.9%
1990-1993....Bush..........7.8%........32.7%.......6.5%
1994-1997....Clinton.......4.3%........13.2%......14.2%
1998-2001....Clinton.......8.1%........-0.2%......14.2%
2002-2005....Bush.........18.9%........22.8%......9.0%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

So it looks like Carter moderate increased spending but reduced the debt.
Reagan had a moderate increase in spending but increased the debt about 45% per term.
Bush with moderate spending increased the debt by 33%.
Clinton with moderate to low increase in spending and low to negative growth in debt.
Bush with moderate increase in spending and debt.

If you look at the GDP percentages with 10% being the norm you see Regan with a moderate increase in one term and Clinton two terms.


Now back to our regularly scheduled mud slinging.

[whec720]

The key is unemployment. Libs hate this, but it true. Reagan was getting hammered by it, early in his presidency. However, the policy changes he implemented, whether you agree with them or not, chipped away at the numbers of the unemployed. By the end of his second term, in June of 1988, unemployment figures were the lowest they had been in 14 years.

Reagan was not the greatest President to walk this Earth, but he certainly was not the buffoon libs tried to paint him to be.

[Tool-Slinger]

Percent increase
..................Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP

1978-1981....Carter........17.2%.....-0.4%.......9.4%
1982-1985....Reagan......14.5%......49.0%.....11.2%
1986-1989....Reagan.......7.4%.......40.2%.....15.9%
1990-1993....Bush..........7.8%........32.7%.......6.5%
1994-1997....Clinton.......4.3%........13.2%......14.2%
1998-2001....Clinton.......8.1%........-0.2%......14.2%
2002-2005....Bush.........18.9%........22.8%......9.0%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

So it looks like Carter moderate increased spending but reduced the debt.
Reagan had a moderate increase in spending but increased the debt about 45% per term.
Bush with moderate spending increased the debt by 33%.
Clinton with moderate to low increase in spending and low to negative growth in debt.
Bush with moderate increase in spending and debt.

If you look at the GDP percentages with 10% being the norm you see Regan with a moderate increase in one term and Clinton two terms.


Now back to our regularly scheduled mud slinging.

Obama beats anyone, he triples debt and spending.... What is the point of digging up Reagan?

[pageyjim]

The key is unemployment. Libs hate this, but it true. Reagan was getting hammered by it, early in his presidency. However, the policy changes he implemented, whether you agree with them or not, chipped away at the numbers of the unemployed. By the end of his second term, in June of 1988, unemployment figures were the lowest they had been in 14 years.

Reagan was not the greatest President to walk this Earth, but he certainly was not the buffoon libs tried to paint him to be.

I have to say ty a decent post with no name calling. All above may be true(I didn't check 14 yr quote but let's assume, since his post was civil, ty again lol) It is also true that he came in with 7.1% unemployment it went up and it was brought down to 5.3% after 8 years. It averaged 7.5% for his presidency. Also true that the 16 million jobs created just kept pace with population growth.
I did not call Reagan a buffoon, it is also true that Jimmy Carter is not a buffoon. There are a few factors when discussing economic conditions under these 2 presidents. Carter was hurt by the Fed. being tight and Reagan prospered some by the Fed loosening constraints. Which is out of the presidents control. Also Reagan was able to be the first big defecit spender without having to pay a lot of interest on that debt.