Unemployment: Obama vs REAGAN (OMG!!)

Jngreznex said:
I did not combat the fact that the rich have done very, very well under Reagan, and that the top 1% or so make salaries that used to be reserved for the top 0.1%. What I did say is that this incredible growth in wealth for the rich and the corporations came from somewhere. Reaganism brought the rich up by bringing the rest of us down. It punished the wage-earner to feed the wage-keeper.
Click to expand...

which is why you get a D-, only a nice try keeping you from an F.

Please check the increase in the total size of the pie simpleton.
 
Topspin said:
which is why you get a D-, only a nice try keeping you from an F.

Please check the increase in the total size of the pie simpleton.
Click to expand...

that was going to be my comment as well. It was not a zero-sum game. The size of the total pie increased.
 
Topspin said:
Vast enough to know that the overwhelming majority of dems are clueless about it.
When they know anything past remedial, this is what you get. Unemployment, the median wage yada yad....

As if coprs are not responsible for the economic gains.
Click to expand...

I think I understand. Wages and unemployment aren't really important to those such as you who, through vast, though self-proclaimed, economic knowledge understand the folly of a man having problems feeding his family and paying the rent. Tha-a-at's what Reagan was trying to pass on to those that followed. Thanks for the enlightenment.
"Yada, yada."
 
belme1201 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

between the beginning and the end of the Carter years the cost of a starter home in Michigan moved from around $8000 to around $38000 as a result of inflation......most everything else also increased accordingly.....if today we have 3% inflation it has a dramatically increased effect than if the values it was applied to were a fourth as large......
 
cawacko said:
that was going to be my comment as well. It was not a zero-sum game. The size of the total pie increased.
Click to expand...
Liberal extremists are not capable of understanding that simple economic concept. To them, there is a fixed quantity of wealth that we all compete for, and therefore it's not fair that some get more of it than others.

LOL Walter E. Williams gave a great baseball analogy to demonstrate the absurdity of this position: 'Home runs are a limited resource. Barry Bonds has too many home runs. He took home runs away from other players, and he should give some back to the other players in order to play fair.'
 
belme1201 said:
The economy "teetering on a recession". I would hardly use that phrase to describe what Obama found that bush left the country ten months ago. Reagan used Keynesian defense spending to spur the economy in a concentrated direction as well as unheard of deficits in that time.
Check out unemployment numbers through the Reagan terms and, in addition, see the progress US wage earners failed to make during those years as has been consistent in most GOP Supply Side years since.
Click to expand...

The 'teetering on a recession' was referencing when REAGAN took office. Not when Obama took office.

Funny how so many on the left forget that 'Reagan's spending' was done in stride with Tipper. Funny how they also forget that the military was in shambles after Carter was done with it. It needed to be re-tooled.
 
cawacko said:
that was going to be my comment as well. It was not a zero-sum game. The size of the total pie increased.
Click to expand...

I was not claiming it's a zero-sum game. I was just pointing out that concentrating on the growth of corporations and rich people has not produced growth in the salaries of middle-class workers. At least not as great growth as our previous policies.

The growth in wealth for upper class America has been exponential, but the growth in wealth for the rest of us HAS taken a large hit since Reagan's policies went into effect. That is not the same thing as repeating the fallacy of a zero-sum game.
 
belme1201 said:
I think I understand. Wages and unemployment aren't really important to those such as you who, through vast, though self-proclaimed, economic knowledge understand the folly of a man having problems feeding his family and paying the rent. Tha-a-at's what Reagan was trying to pass on to those that followed. Thanks for the enlightenment.
"Yada, yada."
Click to expand...

YOu don't get shit you tool. Have you had 1 econ course. Do you invest.

Your the type of dem that threatens the solid majority that we have now. Your type acts like all you have to do is break out the woe is the poor mans plight and you majically have some econ credit.

NOT.
Take a cue from Obama, he's been sucking wall street cock there's no tomorrow.
Please take a look at what the average family had pre Reagan and the beginning of Clinton instead of cherry picking stats that make you look like you'd break out in hives if you stepped foot in a business college.
 
Jngreznex said:
I was not claiming it's a zero-sum game. I was just pointing out that concentrating on the growth of corporations and rich people has not produced growth in the salaries of middle-class workers. At least not as great growth as our previous policies.

The growth in wealth for upper class America has been exponential, but the growth in wealth for the rest of us HAS taken a large hit since Reagan's policies went into effect. That is not the same thing as repeating the fallacy of a zero-sum game.
Click to expand...

thats democratic diahrea at it's best. The average family was better off, and very many climbed the ladder to middle and upper middle.
You have to have rungs on the ladder to climb fool.
 
Topspin said:
And Waterburger flipper chimes in with the typical I have no fucking clue about economics.
Here's a freebee for ya.

Please check the number of new rich under Reagan, then check a random selection of pimple faced sophmores who work with you.
Ask them, the ones going to college with you how many want to stay poor vs getting rich.
Too easy, these sites should not allow unarmed democrats to talk economics.
Click to expand...


Check the growth of the US population and the momentum increasing the size of the pie while wages were stagnant. When the US came out of WWII we were far and away the wealthiest nation with the wealthiest people, yet those dummies on all sides of us have either gained upon or surpassed the individual wealth of the US. That, even with the obvious stupidity of 35 hour work weeks, 1 month vacations with pay, free day care, free health care, 1/2 to 1 yr. paid time off with newborns, minimum wages double ours, etc. Gad! It must be Hell!
In the meantime, country after country with such stupidity has surpassed the US in the wealth and the well-being of its citizens until we are far down the list of wealthy nations. Why some of your knowledgable mavens even question how it's possible for the Danes to think they are happy and not poor deluded souls, how silly they must be.
They're so stupid, they must be "unarmed Democrats."
 
Last edited:
belme1201 said:
Check the growth of the US population and the momentum increasing the size of the pie while wages were stagnant. When the US came out of WWII we were far and away the wealthiest nation with the wealthiest people, yet those dummies on all sides of us have either gained upon or surpassed the individual wealth of the US. That, even with the obvious stupidity of 35 hour work weeks, 1 month vacations with pay, free day care, free health care, 1/2 to 1 yr. paid time off with newborns, minimum wages double ours, etc. Gad! It must be Hell!
In the meantime, country after country with such stupidity has surpassed the US in the wealth and the well-being of its citizens until we are far down the list of wealthy nations. Why some of your knowledgable mavens even question how it's possible for the Danes to think they are happy and not poor deluded souls, how silly they must be.
They're so stupid, they must be "unarmed Democrats."
Click to expand...


totally laughable no facts included d-
 
belme1201 said:
Check the growth of the US population and the momentum increasing the size of the pie while wages were stagnant. When the US came out of WWII we were far and away the wealthiest nation with the wealthiest people, yet those dummies on all sides of us have either gained upon or surpassed the individual wealth of the US. That, even with the obvious stupidity of 35 hour work weeks, 1 month vacations with pay, free day care, free health care, 1/2 to 1 yr. paid time off with newborns, minimum wages double ours, etc. Gad! It must be Hell!
In the meantime, country after country with such stupidity has surpassed the US in the wealth and the well-being of its citizens until we are far down the list of wealthy nations. Why some of your knowledgable mavens even question how it's possible for the Danes to think they are happy and not poor deluded souls, how silly they must be.
They're so stupid, they must be "unarmed Democrats."
Click to expand...

Please list the countries that have exceeded us in wealth. Thanks.
 
Topspin said:
YOu don't get shit you tool. Have you had 1 econ course. Do you invest.

Your the type of dem that threatens the solid majority that we have now. Your type acts like all you have to do is break out the woe is the poor mans plight and you majically have some econ credit.

NOT.
Take a cue from Obama, he's been sucking wall street cock there's no tomorrow.
Please take a look at what the average family had pre Reagan and the beginning of Clinton instead of cherry picking stats that make you look like you'd break out in hives if you stepped foot in a business college.
Click to expand...


"Your" still fixated on economics and business courses, yet you won't reveal the source of your vast knowledge. I make no claims, you do and I doubt you.
Further evidence is that you also haven't got a reply to anything said except with hypertensive tirades. Sit down, lower your blood pressure and do some logical thinking.......for a change.
Which "solid majority" is this poor ignorant soul threatening? I never claimed such power, please, with your overwhelming wisdom, enlighten me, maybe I can put it to use.
 
belme1201 said:
"Your" still fixated on economics and business courses, yet you won't reveal the source of your vast knowledge. I make no claims, you do and I doubt you.
Further evidence is that you also haven't got a reply to anything said except with hypertensive tirades. Sit down, lower your blood pressure and do some logical thinking.......for a change.
Which "solid majority" is this poor ignorant soul threatening? I never claimed such power, please, with your overwhelming wisdom, enlighten me, maybe I can put it to use.
Click to expand...

what a weakling

No major country came close to the US in per Capita Income or wealth.
Why do I know, I'm an accountant with an MBA that has invested for 25 years based on my knowledge of macro economics.
I have 10x the average in my 401K at 49, is that street cred enough for you junior. LOFL
 
belme weakling, you want to crack on Reagan stay away from economics. He's listed at one of the top presidents in the last 50 years because of the economic turn around he brought.
You want to go with the moronic racist war on drugs, or Iran contra go there.
The economics water is WAY OVER YOUR HEAD.
 
Last edited:
Topspin said:
thats democratic diahrea at it's best. The average family was better off, and very many climbed the ladder to middle and upper middle.
You have to have rungs on the ladder to climb fool.
Click to expand...

That's not what the median wage says. Again, many in the top 1% climbed to levels of wealth that had previously been the purview of the 0.1%. But the middle class did not grow.
 
Topspin said:
belme weakling, you want to crack on Reagan stay away from economics. He's listed at one of the top presidents in the last 50 years because of the economic turn around he brought.
You want to go with the moronic racist war on drugs, or Iran contra go there.
The economics water is WAY OVER YOUR HEAD.
Click to expand...

Reagan was the worst president in history.
 
Topspin said:
what a weakling

No major country came close to the US in per Capita Income or wealth.
Why do I know, I'm an accountant with an MBA that has invested for 25 years based on my knowledge of macro economics.
I have 10x the average in my 401K at 49, is that street cred enough for you junior. LOFL
Click to expand...

Norway has a higher GDP per capita. It's nominal is a nuts 100k a year, but it's PPP value is 53k; about 5k higher than the US.
 
Jngreznex said:
Reagan was the worst president in history.
Click to expand...

toolius minimus, please read more than a weakling libtard talking point.
So you cherrypick median income.
Please tell me your not claiming that the top 1% got all the benefit.
I was in college and graduating while you were wearing pampers, the upper middle class exploded.

you are way out of your weightclass on this one water thimble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top