President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RocknRoll]

I'm actually siding with the GOP on ensuring the bank bill doesn't have automatic bailouts for the mega corporations. What's so funny is that Republicans have been - and still are - in bed with the banks and Wall Street. They're still courting themselves as pro-industry and portraying the Democrats as anti-business - in other words, talking out of both sides of their collective asses. What a joke.

You're right... it is a joke... and it appears Obama wasn't doing so bad himself with the banks when he got elected... makes one wonder if both sides are talking out of their collective asses...

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election

University of California-----------$1,591,395
Goldman Sachs-------------------$994,795
Harvard University----------------$854,747
Microsoft Corp---------------------$833,617
Google Inc-------------------------$803,436
Citigroup Inc-----------------------$701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co------------- $695,132
Time Warner-----------------------$590,084
Sidley Austin LLP -----------------$$588,598
Stanford University----------------$586,557
National Amusements Inc---------$551,683
UBS AG-----------------------------$543,219
Wilmerhale Llp---------------------$542,618
Skadden, Arps et al----------------$530,839
IBM Corp----------------------------$528,822
Columbia University----------------$528,302
Morgan Stanley---------------------$514,881
General Electric---------------------$499,130
US Government---------------------$494,820
Latham & Watkins------------------$493,835

Why do universities spend hard earned tuition/taxpayer (california) dollars on elections? Shouldn't they be non-partisan?

[slucero]

I'm actually siding with the GOP on ensuring the bank bill doesn't have automatic bailouts for the mega corporations. What's so funny is that Republicans have been - and still are - in bed with the banks and Wall Street. They're still courting themselves as pro-industry and portraying the Democrats as anti-business - in other words, talking out of both sides of their collective asses. What a joke.

You're right... it is a joke... and it appears Obama wasn't doing so bad himself with the banks when he got elected... makes one wonder if both sides are talking out of their collective asses...

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election

University of California-----------$1,591,395
Goldman Sachs-------------------$994,795
Harvard University----------------$854,747
Microsoft Corp---------------------$833,617
Google Inc-------------------------$803,436
Citigroup Inc-----------------------$701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co------------- $695,132
Time Warner-----------------------$590,084
Sidley Austin LLP -----------------$$588,598
Stanford University----------------$586,557
National Amusements Inc---------$551,683
UBS AG-----------------------------$543,219
Wilmerhale Llp---------------------$542,618
Skadden, Arps et al----------------$530,839
IBM Corp----------------------------$528,822
Columbia University----------------$528,302
Morgan Stanley---------------------$514,881
General Electric---------------------$499,130
US Government---------------------$494,820
Latham & Watkins------------------$493,835

Why do universities spend hard earned tuition/taxpayer (california) dollars on elections? Shouldn't they be non-partisan?

Universities.. public utilities... GSE's like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.. they all lobby and donate to politicians...

[donnaplease]

Wow, paraphrasing from none other than Muammar al-Gaddafi. A brilliant stroke there, LiePaster.

The next thing I expect from you or AmonGöthFan is to post something about Obama "canceling" the National Day Of Prayer.

Try me, you right-wing nutjob fruitcakes.

It's not even funny 7. They are way out there. Scary thing is there are others out there just like them. FactFinder is pretty fucked up individual.

Wait... so you guys have no problem whatsoever with this guy's comments? Instead you simply choose to attack the messenger?

This is serious shit, guys. If you have no problem with what's going on here, then perhaps that says something about where your priorities lie. Especially after folks here blasted GWB for his contact with BinLaden's family after 9/11. A family that purportedly had nothing to do with Osama, nor any connection to those attacks.

If you folks don't think we are going in the WRONG direction, then I'm really sad for you. Politics aside, this is our future we're talking about. More importantly, it's the future of our children. I, for one, am not optimistic for them. Scared shitless is more like it.

[hoagiepete]

While helping my daughter study for an AP History test last week, it struck me that it seems like this is where we are eerily headed toward... Totalitarianism.

Ignore our two parties and lump them together as "Washington, DC" and we're almost there. A bit concerning.

As defined by Wikipedia (which I'm not a big fan of but in a hurry)...

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarianism is generally characterised by the coincidence of authoritarianism (i.e., where ordinary citizens have no significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (i.e., a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct the most significant aspects of public and private life)[3].

Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.

[7 Wishes]

Hoagiepete and donnaplease, you have been brainwashed to the point of no return.

No-one with a firm grip on reality actually believes we are headed towards a totalitarian state. The Republicans used reconciliation to force legislation through Congress for six years under Bush II - and at the same time our most basic civil liberties were being taken away from us under the auspices of the Patriot Act and the Domestic Communications Act. Where was the Tea Party then? Where was the outrage? Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion dollar defecit because of Bush's incompetence. Where were the doomsayers and fatalists then?

This all goes back to the point that white conservative Americans have a huge problem being governed by a black man. Don't believe me? The same study that LiePaster cited (about the supposed superior intelligence of Teabaggers) also showed that almost four in ten of the (thankfully small and ever-shrinking) 18% of Americans who say they "identify" with the movement actually believe he's a Kenyan and therefore has no right to be President (a theory that has been thoroughly and irrefutably disproven), and another 47% of that 18% believes he's the "antichrist".

So, naturally, I am going to have major issues with people as ignorant as GoebbelsFan, who fan the flames of white hate with their baseless and reactionary hateful rhetoric, as well as people who perpetuate those false assertions and beliefs by believing only that they want to hear and read (i.e. Fox "News") and brainwashing their children into believing the same.

[hoagiepete]

I don't have time to debate, but if you'd have read my post a little closer, I was lumping R's and D's and current and past presidents all into one. I clearly did not call out Obama. Not sure how you would argue that we aren't headed in that direction.

Now, how that can be parlayed into a rant about how now the people opposing what the current administration is doing are now racist is beyond me. That's an entirely different subject. The race card is the ultimate spin. The tea baggers are getting some traction so the spin machine is at work. If everyone (media and libs everywhere) keeps saying they are racist, some will eventually believe it and it will detract from their real message. Hell, my mother is supportive of the Tea Party movement and I can assure you she ain't racist. Trust me. She even had us go to a black church's bible school two summers when I was a kid when she was directing their choir. We enjoyed it by the way.

So because my opinion is that Obama is the least prepared president I've witnessed, that is still too caught up with the notion he actually is president to truly act like one, I'm now a racist? F off. I'm not saying that because of the number of golf rounds he has played either. (That is BS news comparing his rounds of golf to GW's...except that the libs always slammed GW for playing...both are crap.)

By the way 7 and the rest of you that continue to berate those that have a bit different take on things than you...get off your fuckin high horses thinking you are the only ones with a thought of your own. You embarrass yourselves everytime you accuse all conservatives of being programmed by the dip shit talking heads.. That leaves all that don't rolling our eyes saying...whatever. Everytime you do that, any bit of credibility you may have had is gone.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Wait... so you guys have no problem whatsoever with this guy's comments? Instead you simply choose to attack the messenger?
This is serious shit, guys. If you have no problem with what's going on here, then perhaps that says something about where your priorities lie.

What, exactly, is serious shit? We actively recruited Gaddafi to give up the bomb and re-join the international community. Now, instead of calling us the "Great Satan" he is going around professing his gushy love for us. He may be a mass-murdering, jew hating psycopath, but at least he's our psycopath.

If you folks don't think we are going in the WRONG direction, then I'm really sad for you. Politics aside, this is our future we're talking about. More importantly, it's the future of our children. I, for one, am not optimistic for them. Scared shitless is more like it.

I'm even sadder for you. We are slowly coming out of the worst financial crisis in 70 years, and all you guys can do is throw tea parties, equate healthcare with the nazi crematoriums at buchenwald and dachau, fight regulation, and cling to the same stale right wing dogma.
Quantify the difference between GOP heir-apparents like Sarah Palin and George W. Bush?
There is none. The GOP has learned nothing.

[slucero]

The CBO just re-estimated the Presidents Budget..... fark...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/03-05-apb.pdf

CBO’s preliminary analysis indicates the following:

If the President’s proposals were enacted, the federal government would record deficits of $1.5 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. Those deficits would
amount to 10.3 percent and 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), respectively. By comparison, the deficit in 2009 totaled 9.9 percent of GDP.

Measured relative to the size of the economy, the deficit under the President’s proposals would fall to about 4 percent of GDP by 2014 but would rise steadily thereafter. Compared with CBO’s baseline projections, deficits under the proposals would be about 2 percentage points of GDP higher in fiscal years 2011 and 2012,
1.3 percentage points greater in 2013, and above baseline levels by growing amounts thereafter. By 2020, the deficit would reach 5.6 percent of GDP, compared
with 3.0 percent under CBO’s baseline projections.

Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020. As a result, net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would expand from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020.

Revenues under the President’s proposals would be $1.4 trillion (or 4 percent) below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, largely because of the President’s proposals to index the parameters of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax reductions enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). CBO’s baseline projections reflect current law, under which the parameters of the AMT revert to earlier levels and the reductions under EGTRRA and JGTRRA expire as scheduled at the end of December 2010. Other proposals— including ones associated with significant changes in the nation’s health insurance system—would, on net, increase revenues.

Mandatory outlays under the President’s proposals would be above CBO’s baseline projections by $1.9 trillion (or 8 percent) over the 2011–2020 period, about one third of which would stem from net additional spending related to proposed changes to the health insurance system and health care programs. Much of the rest
of the increase in mandatory spending would result from increased spending for refundable tax credits and for the Pell Grant program for postsecondary students.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The tea baggers are getting some traction so the spin machine is at work. If everyone (media and libs everywhere) keeps saying they are racist, some will eventually believe it and it will detract from their real message.

There is no unified real message. The Tea Partiers are comprised of Fed. Reserve/fiat money haters, one-world-order conspiracists, Christian dominionists, anti-gov't anarchists, 2nd amendment buffs, and regular fed-up conservatives. The only common denominator is they all listen to talk radio/Fox, and hate Obama. If that sounds like an oversimplification, hey, I'm sorry, that's the overwhelming impression. I'd be a lot more willing to take them at face value, if they had waited to protest AFTER the administration had actually done something, y'know, totalitarian or fascist. Dissent is patriotic - no argument there. But protesting imaginary tax hikes before they exist doesn't do your cause any favors. To me, it gives the impression of disillusioned voters who can't quite grasp the meaning of "you lost."

During his time in office, Clinton only had to worry about Limbaugh. Since then, right wing partisan media has exploded. From now on, expect a Tea Party to occur EVERY time a Democratic President wins fair and square, and the red-faced mobs, like clockwork, will pour onto the streets for crimes imagined or otherwise. IMO, this is only the beginning.

[7 Wishes]

The SPLC and the Washington Examiner. What's next? The Limbaugh Weekly?

Taxes on the middle class are at their lowest rate in FIFTY YEARS, LiePaster.

Dubbya ran the deficit up to $1.3 trillion before Obama spent one day in office.

Uninsured people cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars per year - because hospitals and clinics are not allowed to turn people away regardless of thier ability to pay.

Given all this, where was the outrage during the Dubbya Administration? He ran up record deficits and spent uncontrollably, yet there was no Tea Party, no protests...there were not tens of thousands of websites dedicated exclusively to the perpetuating of outright lies.

You're another dittohead - entirely programmed to do and say what they want you to think and re-issue their talking points. And, yet again - you are dead wrong.

[conversationpc]

Reading the bullcrap in this thread has reminded me why I was absent from the forum for a long period of time last year. I think another hiatus is in order.

Sayonara folks. Feel free to look me up on Facebook, though. Send me a PM, if interested.

[donnaplease]

Hoagiepete and donnaplease, you have been brainwashed to the point of no return.

Wrong again, Daniel.

[donnaplease]

Wait... so you guys have no problem whatsoever with this guy's comments? Instead you simply choose to attack the messenger?
This is serious shit, guys. If you have no problem with what's going on here, then perhaps that says something about where your priorities lie.

What, exactly, is serious shit? We actively recruited Gaddafi to give up the bomb and re-join the international community. Now, instead of calling us the "Great Satan" he is going around professing his gushy love for us. He may be a mass-murdering, jew hating psycopath, but at least he's our psycopath.

If you folks don't think we are going in the WRONG direction, then I'm really sad for you. Politics aside, this is our future we're talking about. More importantly, it's the future of our children. I, for one, am not optimistic for them. Scared shitless is more like it.

I'm even sadder for you. We are slowly coming out of the worst financial crisis in 70 years, and all you guys can do is throw tea parties, equate healthcare with the nazi crematoriums at buchenwald and dachau, fight regulation, and cling to the same stale right wing dogma.
Quantify the difference between GOP heir-apparents like Sarah Palin and George W. Bush?
There is none. The GOP has learned nothing.

For a guy as smart as you seem to be, if you can't figure out the serious shit, I certainly can't explain it to you. And I'm not gonna sit here and sling insults either. If the posters on this thread would spend one-fifth of their time actually sharing their thoughts on all this stuff in a direct yet respectful manner instead of calling each other names perhaps some debate could actually occur. Instead all we see is C&P from one side and nasty retorts from the other.

IMO, the 'teabaggers' aren't really any different than the 'community organizations' that BO worked so hard for. The only difference that I see is what they're fighting for. You may not agree with it, but it's kinda hard to say that they have the right to protest on one hand, then blast them and call them racists, etc on the other.

I'm not politically savvy, TNC. I don't stand a chance debating someone like you on politics, and I would be the first to admit it. However, I am a very patriotic American, and as such I'm entitled to my opinion on the way I want my America to be. Just because it doesn't jive with the liberal 'dogma' doesn't mean it's wrong.

[7 Wishes]

Well, I'm sorry. I suppose that's a bit harsh, and I apologize.

Nonetheless, I really do need someone to explain to me where the Tea Party was for the entire Dubbya Presidency, since he was deficit- and debt- spending, declaring illegal wars, taking away basic civil liberties, and increasing taxes on the middle class while giving the rich huge tax breaks.

Where was the outrage then, donna, if the main issue here isn't racism?

[Lula]

i too wonder where the outrage was with the bush administration? i'm all for grassroots movements and maybe it simply took the tea baggers some time to mobilize .

[Monker]

Well, I'm sorry. I suppose that's a bit harsh, and I apologize.

Nonetheless, I really do need someone to explain to me where the Tea Party was for the entire Dubbya Presidency, since he was deficit- and debt- spending, declaring illegal wars, taking away basic civil liberties, and increasing taxes on the middle class while giving the rich huge tax breaks.

Where was the outrage then, donna, if the main issue here isn't racism?

They werebusy telling those who did not agree with the above that they were unpatriotic and should leave the country if they disagreed.

[Ehwmatt]

i too wonder where the outrage was with the bush administration? i'm all for grassroots movements and maybe it simply took the tea baggers some time to mobilize .

The simple nonpartisan answer: Most people are more concerned with practical things that have real impact on their friends and families, like jobs, confiscatory taxes, and the like that are either being threatened or we are currently suffering from. As for the war, there was plenty of outrage about that on both sides for a war that both sides willingly voted for and sanctioned. Until nearly the end of Bush's tenure, there was simply not the myriad of practical, serious as heart attack concerns that are plaguing the every day American now.

Most Americans are content to toss highfalutin political rhetoric aside and not be too concerned about the specter of men in black suits showing up on their doorstep to detain them pursuant to the Patriot Act or whatever other things the lefties were bantering and raging about during the Bush administration.

All in all, long answer short, until people's lives are directly touched, as many lives are being touched right now, by horrendous conditions in the country, why would there be outrage?

[The_Noble_Cause]

For a guy as smart as you seem to be, if you can't figure out the serious shit, I certainly can't explain it to you.

That’s a cop-out. If you can’t explain your opinion, why bother? If by "serious shit" you mean Gaddafi saying a few nice words about the president, I addressed that.

And I'm not gonna sit here and sling insults either. If the posters on this thread would spend one-fifth of their time actually sharing their thoughts on all this stuff in a direct yet respectful manner instead of calling each other names perhaps some debate could actually occur. Instead all we see is C&P from one side and nasty retorts from the other.

For the record, I neither called you names or resorted to copying and pasting. I even went so far as to call the Tea Partiers, Tea Partiers, and not any sexual double entendre.

IMO, the 'teabaggers' aren't really any different than the 'community organizations' that BO worked so hard for. The only difference that I see is what they're fighting for. You may not agree with it, but it's kinda hard to say that they have the right to protest on one hand, then blast them and call them racists, etc on the other.

I didn’t call them racists anywhere in my post.

As for the community activist/Tea Party comparisons…I know social workers. Trust me, they’re a little too preoccupied doing a thankless (and often dangerous) job to get dressed up like Paul Revere and protest Kenyan communist death panels that don't exist.
Since you claim to know what the Tea Party stands for, let me ask you– what exactly do they stand for?
Seems like little more than misdirected, unproductive anti-government rage to me.

I'm not politically savvy, TNC. I don't stand a chance debating someone like you on politics, and I would be the first to admit it. However, I am a very patriotic American, and as such I'm entitled to my opinion on the way I want my America to be. Just because it doesn't jive with the liberal 'dogma' doesn't mean it's wrong.

Of course, you are entitled to your own informed opinion. But if you can’t even begin to explain it, or engage in conversation about it, what good is it? At a certain point, opinions without substance just become slogans and buzzwords. As always, thanks for the kind words.

[donnaplease]

First off, Daniel, if you're apologizing to me, thank you but it wasn't necessary. If you weren't, then why the hell not???

I can't answer for the 'teabaggers', except to say that perhaps they felt like the 'spending' (if that's what is at issue) was for things that were important to them. Each of us has our own values. Personally, I cannot really fathom the kind of money we're talking about (in either administration) so it's hard for me to wrap my scrawny little brain around. But, I will say that I thought - and from most arguments here - that most of the "Bush deficit" was due to defense spending and the costs of the wars. Because I believe in a strong military and in the defense of our country against further attacks, I don't have as much problem with it as I do with the health care bill, for example. I can debate that more readily because I work in health care, and I'm familiar with how Medicare and Medicaid (to a lesser degree) works. I have an idea of what we're up against.

I also believe strongly in 'the American dream' which to my understanding is people working hard for the benefits that they get out of life. There are basic 'rights', of course, but I am opposed to the concept of 'leveling the playing field'... just because the government can.

As far as the "outrage" during the Bush administration, I can assure you it was there. It just had the spotlight in a different place, and you guys were in agreement with it because of your political leanings/hatred for Bush/whatever you may have thought at the time. How many times has W been called a murderer here? How many other insults were slung at him and the republicans/conservatives in general. The whole 2008 election was more about defeating Bush than it was about anything else. It's just really easy to throw out that race card because your current president is a black man. It may be true in some cases, but saying that the Tea Party is rooted in racism is not a fair assessment of them, IMO.

It all boils down to values and what's important to you as an individual.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Need I remind you that it was the Republican Party who supported freeing the slaves and fought the Dems tooth and nail over the Civil Rights Act. Look it up. That you Libs have turned that around and made Republicans out to be racists galls me to no end.

Need I remind you that LBJ's Civil Rights Act was supported by Northern moderate Republicans, who no longer exist in your party? I believe you call them RINOs today, and your party is in the process of purging every last one.
Addditionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was struck down as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Today, I believe your party would praise these justices as "strict constitutionalists" upholding America's finest traditions, or some other BS.
The GOP's own presidential candidate in '64 voted against civil rights.

[donnaplease]

TNC, I know you didn't say some of the things in my post. I was kinda merging my thoughts from several different posts.

As for Gaddafi, it's not the few nice words that concerns me. It's him thinking that just because Obama's in office that we are suddenly a different country and worthy of his praise and respect. Yikes!

[Saint John]

increasing taxes on the middle class while giving the rich huge tax breaks.

I'll attack this one since it's the easiest. Totally untrue. The richest Americans paid 39% under president Bush and that was still waaaay too fucking much. Imagine having every dollar you earn being taxed to the tune of 39 cents and then paying taxes again when you buy things. Nice way to treat those that do the best and spend the most.

Hey, if you wanna be unfair and don't wanna tax everyone at the same rate at least have the balls to flip it and make the dumb fuckers (like me) pay the higher percentage. Success shouldn't be punished. I'd have less of a problem seeing the poor pay higher taxes than I do the rich. It would sorta mandate success in this country. Something we've gotten away from. We went from the American Dream to American Entitlement ... starting with that fat hillbilly president in 1992 forcing banks to give loans to those that didn't deserve/earn the right to earn a home.

[The_Noble_Cause]

...I'd have less of a problem seeing the poor pay higher taxes than I do the rich. It would sorta mandate success in this country. Something we've gotten away from. We went from the American Dream to American Entitlement ....

Actually, from the 50s until Reagan, the top marginal tax rate stood at 70% to 90%. The country moved away from the post-WW2 boom into the shadow of Reaganomics, and here we are. What you're suggesting is a return to the regressive taxation days of the gilded age, which sucked even worse.

[7 Wishes]

Dan, you know I love ya, man, but I gotta post this regardless.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb0602c1.pdf

The problem was, it didn't work.

Look, some of this boils down to personal values - I've made as much as $80,000 a year and as little as $25,000. I grew up in Europe; being taxed to help fund (some) social programs has always been something I've seen as a civic duty. So, call me a socialist - that's NOT what constructs the fibre of every non-French Western European nation. There's just a different perception of responsibility and caring for those less fortunate than others.

At the same time, I (nor no-one I know) do not support in ANY way the receipt of welfare, food stamps, or any other benefit by illegal immigrants and those who do not pay taxes. Additionally, I believe the welfare system needs to be completely scrapped and a focus placed on giving people (within the framework of a sensible amount of time) at the bottom of the heap the means and opportunity to receive training and/or a higher education, instead of keeping them perpetually on the verge of desperation and poverty. There are a lot of "liberal" or "Democratic" concepts I have issues with.

The fact that Bush was the first 20th century President to preside over two recessions, that he turned a surplus into a massive defecit, declared and funded (without regards to the budget) two massive wars (one of them illegal), and reinstituted the concemporary equivalent of the feudal heirarchy (i.e. the failure of trickle-down Reaganomics) should have been more than enough to spark nominal outrage.

Do you really think the same vitriol would have been hurled at McCain or Kerry had they been elected President in 2008? Really think about your answer before you post it. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion dollar debt, and unless you're a Keynesian of the most conservative variety, you know he couldn't turn that around in one year.

[Saint John]

Reagan inherited a similar, if not worse, scenario than Obama and:

Simultaneously with the enactment of the tax cuts in 1981 the Federal Reserve Board, with the full support of the Reagan Administration, altered monetary policy so as to bring inflation under control. The Federal Reserve's actions brought inflation down faster and further than was anticipated at the time, and one consequence was that the economy fell into a deep recession in 1982. Another consequence of the collapse in inflation was that federal spending levels, which had been predicated on a higher level of expected inflation, were suddenly much higher in inflation-adjusted terms. The combination of the tax cuts, the recession, and the one-time increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending produced historically high budget deficits which, in turn, led to a tax increase in 1984 that pared back some of the tax cuts enacted in 1981, especially on the business side.

As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. Though the painful medicine of disinflation slowed and initially hid the process, the beneficial effects of marginal rate cuts and reductions in the disincentives to invest took hold as promised.

[7 Wishes]

Interesting.

Source please? j/k.

Although I have the feeling that Reagan was little more than window dressing through the development of most of that fiscal policy.

[Saint John]

Interesting.

Source please? k/j.

Although I have the feeling that Reagan was little more than window dressing through the development of most of that fiscal policy.

In general, Reagan inherited double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, and did a mighty fine job getting them all under control while lowering taxes. Not to mention that he made the U.S. the lone superpower, really made us the envy of the world by taking down the Berlin Wall, and... a lot of people don't know this (please try and keep this a secret), but he was actually the goalie for the 1980 U.S. olympic hockey team.

[7 Wishes]

LOL. At least he didn't turn into a fat fuck like Eruzione, whom I have (no bullshit here) managed to run into twice - at a Pizza Hut and an all-you-can-eat buffet. Go figure.

The story of how the wall really came down is fascinating and has little to do with Reagan. I'll post it later tonight once I dig it up.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Reagan inherited a similar, if not worse, scenario than Obama and:

Not a worse recession.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ion-obama/

And Reagan's tax cuts were followed by continued rising unemployment for well over year, making the GOP's immediate criticisms of Obama's stimulus all the more bogus.

[Saint John]

Not a worse recession.

Perhaps not, but, arguably, a country in overall worse shape.

making the GOP's immediate criticisms of Obama's stimulus all the more bogus.

Why? Obama made promises ... particularly about new jobs and they haven't happened.