I would like to give the Republicans some advice

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

amen. But you're casting pearls before SWINE!

He's one insane little piglet sometimes forcing him to wear lip-stick is appropriate

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

And both of them were highly questionable victories do you recall- remember Florida and Ohio- ring a bell. Obama left no doubt both times.

Ok. Reagan won twice. It still doesn't make the winner right.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

LOL. I love the raw emotion and passion LazyLad. You're worse than a woman PMS'ing. But yeah because 2014 and the 1980's are exact mirrors of each other in terms of economics. Did you get that information above from Glen Beck or Sean Hannity? I'm not going to totally revist all of the Reagan era trickle down economics because I think Obama - Bush is a fairer comparison but I will comment on a few things.

President Amnesty Reagan didn't have to deal with the legacy of two wars of which one was based on total lies started by his predecessor, a ballooning deficit, and a totally intransigent and obstructionist party while in office. Amnesty Reagan didn't have to face a declining global economy & relations, rather, he focused primarily on the US and worked primarily on domestic policies unless he was illegally selling arms to Iran. The inter-dependence of global monetary or fiscal policies was not an issue for Reagan or congress. Fast forward to today where global inter-dependence around fiscal and monetary policies are at an all time high and it was Obama who safely navigated this country back on course in comparison to his direct predecessor - Deregulation Bush, not in comparison to Amnesty Reagan.

None of your drivel really matters. Obama's legacy is safe and will continue to improve once more people are covered under Obamacare and once more Americans become educated and learn the difference between necessary government and corporate fascism.

What two wars did W 'start', Zany? UBL declared war on the U.S. in 1996, Zany. Who was president in 1996 when UBL declared war on the U.S. or in 1998 when the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed or in 2000 when the USS Cole was attacked, Zany? You also might want to check out Operation Desert Fox, Zany, just to jog your memory about when the war in Iraq actually started and recall that "W" also inherited that war.


BTW, Zany, the 1st Qrtr reports for Odumbo's economy aren't looking so good:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) —The U.S. economy contracted by 2.9% in the first quarter, marking the biggest drop since early 2009 when the Great Recession was winding down, according to newly revised government figures....

How bad was the first quarter? The decline was the biggest during a prolonged expansionary phase in the economy since the end of World War II.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-...ter-2014-06-25

[Submodo]

Starting in 1981, a 20 year-old man eats fast food meals 3 times a day, every day. Smokes 2 packs per day, and never exercises.

In 2014, at age 53, the man suffers a heart attack.

Is the blocked artery more likely due to his 1981-2008 behavior, or his 2009-2014 behavior?

[I B Hankering]

Or, it could be like a highly successful trucking company that’s been in business for scores of years without a serious accident until they hired an unqualified big-rig driver who’d never driven anything larger than a Chevy Volt. So was the company wrong for previously hiring only skilled drivers or more wrong for hiring an unskilled driver?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What two wars did W 'start', Zany? UBL declared war on the U.S. in 1996, Zany. Who was president in 1996 when UBL declared war on the U.S. or in 1998 when the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed or in 2000 when the USS Cole was attacked, Zany? You also might want to check out Operation Desert Fox, Zany, just to jog your memory about when the war in Iraq actually started and recall that "W" also inherited that war.


BTW, Zany, the 1st Qrtr reports for Odumbo's economy aren't looking so good:

Youre a fucking moron IBIdiot, but we knew that.

UBL was not a sovereign nation. The US went after Ak Qaeda.

But Bush started wars against the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least one of them was completely unfounded and the worst case of lying to the public ... The kind that tanks the economy and costs thousands of lives.

Why do you continue to justify Bush's wars? Maybe it's because you can't reprise the Civil War when your side is all dolled up?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Youre a fucking moron IBIdiot, but we knew that.

UBL was not a sovereign nation. The US went after Ak Qaeda.

But Bush started wars against the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least one of them was completely unfounded and the worst case of lying to the public ... The kind that tanks the economy and costs thousands of lives.

Why do you continue to justify Bush's wars? Maybe it's because you can't reprise the Civil War when your side is all dolled up?

Evidence to the contrary firmly establishes you to be an inveterate liar, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ok. Reagan won twice. It still doesn't make the winner right.

Reagan wouldn't recognize the GOP if he were alive today he would be quite disappointed. Are you saying the GOP in 2014 are the same as the GOP in the REagan years??? Whom are you kidding? Also, Reagan should have won both his elections I am by no means disputing Reagan- he did a good job based on what he had to clean up from the Carter years. However, taxes and inflation went up during Reagan years- he didn't get UE rate down to reasonable standards until 2nd year of his 2nd term. Reagan was for Amnesty- Reagan spent more than all Presidents before him combined!!!!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Evidence to the contrary firmly establishes you to be an inveterate liar, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

What evidence? Your word, you name-calling, turd-burgling, undereducated shithead?

here we go again...

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Reagan wouldn't recognize the GOP if he were alive today he would be quite disappointed. Are you saying the GOP in 2014 are the same as the GOP in the REagan years??? Whom are you kidding? Also, Reagan should have won both his elections I am by no means disputing Reagan- he did a good job based on what he had to clean up from the Carter years. However, taxes and inflation went up during Reagan years- he didn't get UE rate down to reasonable standards until 2nd year of his 2nd term. Reagan was for Amnesty- Reagan spent more than all Presidents before him combined!!!!

No, goddammit! You idiot! My point is that winning an election does not make the winner right, nor should it insulate the winner from criticism!

Geez!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What evidence? Your word, you name-calling, turd-burgling, undereducated shithead?

here we go again...

Beyond you being an inveterate liar, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, the facts are: 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.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Beyond you being an inveterate liar, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, the facts are: 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.

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!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

"We're recovering nicely"? What planet are you living on, zanyboy? Didn't you see the latest Q1 GDP revision that came out today? Google it, you dumbfuck. The economy is shrinking, not growing.

Whaddaya say we compare your so-called Obama recovery with the post-1982 Reagan recovery? Wanna see what that would look like, zanybrain? You like one-word answers, so I'll post a one-graph answer. What does this graph tell you, moron? Does it look like there are plenty of jobs out there thanks to the economic genius now in the White House?

Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

LOL. I love the raw emotion and passion LazyLad. You're worse than a woman PMS'ing. But yeah because 2014 and the 1980's are exact mirrors of each other in terms of economics. Did you get that information above from Glen Beck or Sean Hannity? I'm not going to totally revist all of the Reagan era trickle down economics because I think Obama - Bush is a fairer comparison but I will comment on a few things.

President Amnesty Reagan didn't have to deal with the legacy of two wars of which one was based on total lies started by his predecessor, a ballooning deficit, and a totally intransigent and obstructionist party while in office. Amnesty Reagan didn't have to face a declining global economy & relations, rather, he focused primarily on the US and worked primarily on domestic policies unless he was illegally selling arms to Iran. The inter-dependence of global monetary or fiscal policies was not an issue for Reagan or congress. Fast forward to today where global inter-dependence around fiscal and monetary policies are at an all time high and it was Obama who safely navigated this country back on course in comparison to his direct predecessor - Deregulation Bush, not in comparison to Amnesty Reagan.

None of your drivel really matters. Obama's legacy is safe and will continue to improve once more people are covered under Obamacare and once more Americans become educated and learn the difference between necessary government and corporate fascism.

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."

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

...taxes and inflation went up during Reagan years... Reagan spent more than all Presidents before him combined!!!!

Another dumbfuck who doesn't know what he is talking about... sheesh, this is like playing whac-a-mole...

Taxes did not go up during the Reagan years. Although tax revenues increased as a result of healthy economic growth, tax rates went down... Inflation did not go up during the Reagan years, it went down dramatically. It was running at 12.5% when he took office and 4.2% when he left. In other words, he reduced it by two-thirds... Reagan did not spend more than all Presidents before him combined. Wrong libtard talking point. He increased the debt by more than all of his predecessors, but from a low base. The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion under Reagan. So far Obama has added $7 trillion to the debt - so he is on track to increase it five times as much as Reagan did when he leaves office in 2017.

[Yssup Rider]

so what's your point, IBJunior? that Ronnie Reagan can save us?

Look nimrod, in case you haven't checked lately, more than 30 fucking years have passed since the Gipper took office, and it's been more than 25 years since he lost his tiny mind and slipped into darkness.

Your argument makes no sense in context to today's world.

But you are getting close to full idiot status, Junior.