I would like to give the Republicans some advice

[lustylad]

What a surprise, assup shows up and thinks he can rescue zanyboy without both of them sinking in quicksand... are you completely dense? For tonight's homework assignment, I want you to write out the following 500 times:

"Negative 2.9% GDP growth means the economy is not recovering nicely."
"Negative 2.9% GDP growth means the economy is not recovering nicely."
"Negative 2.9% GDP growth means the economy is not recovering nicely..."

For extra credit, compare and contrast the anti-growth policies of the Obama administration with the pro-growth policies of his predecessors. Using econometric regression analysis, estimate the incremental negative impact of each specific Obama policy on annual GDP growth.

Got that, dipshit?


By the way, did your pea-sized mind slip into darkness before or after Reagan's?

.

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Don't flatter yourself, zanyprick. I don't waste any “emotion and passion” on you. Insofar as you elicit any sentiment at all from me, it is pity. You are not only willfully ignorant, but also too stupid to know enough to STFU when the discussion turns to economics, a discipline that is way over your head. You're one of those idiots who doesn't know what he doesn't know. Or else you do know but you keep trying to fake it til you make it. Neither Glen Beck nor Sean Hannity finished college, but they look like scholarly savants compared to you. As to the source of my information, if you were not such a complete fool you would have noticed right on the graph it is identified as “FRED”. Of course that means nothing to you and you're too lazy to look it up. To those who follow such things, it stands for Federal Reserve Economic Data. (The two Fed data series used to construct the graph are also identified.) Trust me, wormhead, you don't want to challenge the source or integrity of my data.

You resort to your usual bumper-sticker characterizations when you refer to the “trickle down economics” of the Reagan era. The real reason you don't want to revisit it in any depth is because Reagan's economic stewardship was such a resounding success. Instead of engaging in bland polemics, why not look at the facts? Here are a few of the good things that happened to the economy between Jan. 1981 and Jan. 1989:

1. Annual inflation (CPI) slowed from 12.5% to 4.2%.

2. Unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 5.4%.

3. Total employment increased by over 16 million net new jobs.

4. Employment among African Americans rose by 25%.

5. Real GDP expanded by a cumulative 31%.

6. Real per capita disposable income went up by 18%.

7. Federal tax revenues swelled by 76%.

8. The prime interest rate fell from 21.5% to 10.5%.

9. The national average price of a gallon of gasoline dipped from $1.36 to $1.00.


Should I keep going? Or should I stop now that everyone in the balcony is jumping up and down screaming “Gimme more of that trickle down stuff!”

By the way, zanybrain, I had a good laugh reading some of your lame attempts to appear versed in economic jargon. I particularly enjoyed this one - “The inter-dependence of global monetary or fiscal policies was not an issue for Reagan...” Do you even know what any of that means? Try looking up the Plaza Agreement of 1985 and the Louvre Accord of 1987. If inter-dependence wasn't an issue back then, what were those agreements all about, limpdick? You may want to ask your fellow Texan James Baker, since he negotiated them. Oh wait, you're from Zanzibar, not Texas.

I also laughed at your reference to “Deregulation Bush”. Can you name a single significant piece of legislation signed under Bush that contributed to the 2008/09 financial crisis? Let's see... The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? The Financial Services Modernization Act? Oh wait, they were passed on Bubba's watch, weren't they? How about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002? Oh wait, that one imposed a ton of expensive new regs on public corporations, didn't it? Gee whiz, zanypunk. If you took the time to examine the actual historical record, as opposed to swallowing the false, distorted and demonizing mythology of the far left, you would have to label him Regulation Bush.


But let's return to your original complaint. You claim it isn't fair to compare the anemic Obama recovery with the vigorous Reagan rebound. Ok then, why don't we compare Obama's record with the AVERAGE of all recoveries since 1960? Here is what the WSJ noted last week:

"During the 19 quarters since the current expansion began in June 2009, the economy has grown at an annual rate of 2.1%, compared to the 4.1% average in other expansions since 1960, and the 4.9% growth during the Reagan boom of the 1980s."

In other words, the economy is growing at barely half the average rate of expansion since 1960.

Aw shucks zanyboy, nothing seems to work anymore! Any way you slice it, Obama's record sucks. Maybe it's time to throw in the towel and admit that when you elect a libtard community organizer who is hell-bent on pursuing policies that stifle the economy and suppress growth, you will wind up with – a stifled economy and little growth. Here is how the WSJ sums up what your hero's dismal economic legacy will look like:

"Slow growth is the great tragedy of the Obama Presidency, and one cause is that he put his social and political priorities above the revival of economic growth. The focus on ObamaCare, carbon regulation, tax increases and more social spending added economic burdens that have weighed down growth and caused incomes to sputter for all but the affluent."

.

Lol. now let me go on my rant and let me get this straight. I immediately respond to your drivel on 06-25-2014 and it takes you almost a full week to research and respond with information that you don't even have the balls to credit the source. You're not versed in economics you're running to the internet studying and learning as you go trying to pretend you're educated when you're not. Taking almost a full week to build your case. LOL Classic tea party plagiarism.

At any rate my original point stands and I'm not overly interested in Ronald Reagan politics since Reagan didn't have to deal with what Obama did when taking office. Most Republicans try in vain to point back to the Reagan years because they have nothing else to stand on. Reagan was on easy street when he took office compared to Obama. Reagan was also one of the most corrupt Presidents in US history. Care to tell me how many illegals he granted amnesty to? Care to tell us how many arms he sold to Iran? Care to tell us about the WMD's that Reagan gave to Saddam when he sent his special envoy of Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq. In all honesty all of mess were in today can actually be traced back to Ronald Reagan's corrupt administration in effect meaning that Obama is actually cleaning up Reagan's mess.

As for the Obama economy recall when he took office how bleak things looked economically as compared to today. Obama changed the outlook of not just the US. but globally in just 4-5 short years. If you look at those same charts you'll also notice that unemployment and consumer confidence trends have also reversed since he took office and are steadily improving. I can even point to the high return on investments and the record index highs and all the credit goes to Obama for his policy decisions. such as Auto bail-out and Wall St. reform. Plain and simple Obama deserves credit for restoring consumer and investor faith compared to the mess he faced when he took office.

Lazylad if you drop your racial animosity for the President ;-) you should recall that when he took office there were 2 stock market crashes under President Bush (the man you want to forget so that you can pump up Reagan), which lead to the 2nd greatest market decline in US. history outside of the 30's Depression.

Furthermore, if you go back to 2000 you'll also recall that President Clinton left us a budget surplus but by 2009 Bush had in in massive deficits. Again you can bring up Reagan if it makes you feel better but don't turn a blind eye to causes while merely focusing on the effect. Again let me repeat Reagan inherited a far far far better economy than what Bush left for Obama and also he had the benefit of his terms coinciding with the highest performing demographic of the baby boomer generation, whereas Obama doesn't have that luxury since the country is older with fewer young people supporting more near-retirement old folks. That alone makes it much harder for Obama to stimulate growth than it did for Reagan. However, given what he's had to work with Obama's done a masterful job thus far and if I'm not mistaken by the time Hillary takes office the deficit may be only 1% of the GDP.

You go right ahead and keep ignoring how Obama saved us from the brink of total US meltdown because of Bush. Sure there are going to be some kinks along the way but for those of us that voted Obama we didn't expect his admin to be perfect but all things considered he's pretty much been close.

You go right ahead wearing your heart on your sleeve. Ok Mr. Lazy lad. who needs a full week to respond. lol

[i'va biggen]

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many is research.. Steven Wright

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You stupid redneck. Those have nothing to do with this discussion. I guess you were trying to read your laptop and your beer gut got in the way.

I'm talking about Shrubya's illegal wars for profit, and you know it. Not the actions of Saddam Hussein in the early1990s.

UBL was a terrorist. Bush declared war on TEAR and then invaded Iraq... Remember the War on Tear? ("We gonna gitcha") We killed him In PAKISTAN, remember? Remember who was commander in chief? You can't refute those facts.

What sense is it trying to argue with you? You deliberately deflect, deny and denigrate and think you're winning. But you're not.

You continue to squirm in the shadow of your one true flag!
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003...ika_xlarge.png

Once you're involved in a thread, it's never on topic, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. And you are still an inveterate liar, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, and you did not -- you cannot -- refute the facts: UBL declared war on and attacked the U.S. and Saddam Hussein started the Gulf War when he invaded Kuwait, and your ignorant ass cannot refute either of those facts, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. Your sucking dicks under Hitler's swastika must surely make your mommy proud, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.