Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by OklahomaGator, Dec 17, 2013.
Yeah, database currently unavailable. Just like healthcare.gov. See my post above because you're proving the point about cognitive reasoning. It's not even debatable Reagan left then country in better shape than what it was in when to first got into office. NOT EVEN DEBATABLE.
He also raised the public debt and raised taxes 11 times. Not even debatable.
That's not the argument. Of course you tell one side of the story.
Really? You snipe about cognitive reasoning but you can't even understand the simple fact that Obama is still in office and that Reagan had already completed his presidency. Things weren't so great in his first term either. In any case, your superior cognitive reasoning leads you to making faulty apples to oranges comparisons.
But let's make an apples to apples comparison, shall we? I'll start.
Here are the monthly unemployment rates from the BLS for each of their first five years in office. If you think Obama's numbers were so terrible, what reasoning makes you think Reagan's were great? Is it republican math? Conservative reasoning?
*I can't link straight to the actual BLS graph since you have to change the years on the website to go back to the 1980s to include the numbers for Reagan (which is why river's link probably didn't work).
I'm really sorry that you know nothing about unemployment rates, or think that because the economy improved under Reagan, it means that employment does better under Republicans than Democrats. Hey, FSU beat Florida this year, I guess that means the ACC is always better than the SEC, right?
Too see all the rates since 1948, go here. And then tell me what you find.
So some of you want to argue that Obama is Reaganesque? That the big turn is just around the corner? Everything he has done has set the economy up to take off it just hasn't quite happened yet?
For the countries sake I hope you are right but it sure is hard to see!!!!!!
I'm not comparing individual presidents.
Not arguing that at all. I'll let others make such comparisons. But the numbers provide their own context to compare presidencies which is more objective then that which is tied to perceptions based on personalities (or on competing cults of personality).
The hell you're not
And I'm really sorry you know nothing about cognitive reasoning because what you're trying to prove is laughable. I'll say it again, there is not a sane person that would claim the economy was worse off when Reagan left office.
Come on. It's obvious I didn't say that and I pointed that unemployment dropped under him. Now, let's talk about unemployment rates under Democratic and Republican presidents ....
The BLS numbers support your inferior reasoning
But here's an interesting find written by Michael Kinsley, in which he calls improvement in the GDP a tie, though on unemployment and lower spending, he calls it for dems. Here's his spreadsheet.
I suggest you look at the actual number of people working at the start of their Presidencies to the number of people working at the end of their Presidencies (or now, for Obama) to get an actual factual result. The FACTS are that there are less people workign right now than when Obama took office in 2009. THere is no debate on that. His own Labor Dept confirms it. (and, it has nothing to do with Baby Boomers retiring.)
have a link to that?
Exactly. Did you ever wonder why that was? I'll help you. It's because deregulation under fiscally conservative republican presidents created conditions for an improved economy down the road. Since GWB is a fiscal liberal, we are seeing what happens when the economy is slammed by six consecutive terms of democrat (equivalent) presidents. The U.S. economy is so large and slow-moving, it typically takes many years for policies to have a full impact on the economy. Clinton's decision to repeal Glass-Steagal is a good example. Clinton's decision was a major cause in the economic collapse 10 years after he made it. Yet dimwitted democrats seem to want to blame GWB for it.
Evidence? Saying deregulation 'created conditions' is such a weasel term since you don't exactly explain what those conditions are- nor how they actually worked.
Well, you might be partially right. He might be a fiscal liberal. Then again, republicans have been throughout modern history--regardless of what they might claim. By your seeming standard, Reagan too was a fiscal liberal.
I agree, the economy is large and policies often take time, maybe even longer than many believe to have a full effect. So you'll pipe down about Obama now right since he has only been in five years and inherited the biggest, most catastrophic mess of an economy since the Great Depression? Or is this one of those cases where it's only true for those you support?
Clinton's decision? You'd think Clinton was the only one, that this was just some democratic push. The actual historical record says something very different. The legislation drawn up in Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, which had much less democratic support, particularly in the Senate. Heck, one dem congressman or senator was prescient in calling too big to fail.
Many saw the writing on the wall with the repeal, but the dimwittedness and causes of this crisis was a very bipartisan affair...many fathers and mothers to this sick puppy. But you know this already, so I'll just give you the benefit of doubt in forgetting to mention this other part of the history.
JDR already did a pretty good job of debunking this, but let me step in, too. It's really quite amazing. Let's see, your basic complaint is that things do better under Democratic presidents because of the Republican presidents they follow. That's always kind of a cheap excuse. Everything wrong during the Obama's administration is his fault. Everything wrong during a Republican's is some Democrat's fault. Out of curiosity, what happened with GHWB? Why did unemployment rise so much under him? Not Reagan's fault?
You say deregulation under GOP is the reason, yet you point to the repeal of Glass-Steagall as the cause of the 2008 recession. Do you honestly not know that was a major step in deregulation?
You claim GWB was a fiscal liberal, and that makes him essentially a Democrat. Do you really not now what Reagan did with spending? Not a clue?
As JDR pointed out, do you not have a clue about any GOP president's spending?
This must be part of that superior reasoning: