PDA

View Full Version : For those that think Obama is doing an awesome job...



sanfran22
11-09-2011, 11:09 AM
I give you food for thought......
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

OBOMBA
11-13-2011, 03:09 AM
hes just a scape goat puppet in reality he has no power

NyFanCam01
11-13-2011, 03:12 AM
Can you people just chill out..
Maybe get a 40 hour per week type job and live life.

freethrowtommy
11-13-2011, 08:20 AM
Wait, a right wing talking head who has an undying affection for Reagan policies?! SHOCKING!

Peter Ferrara works for the American Civil Liberties Union... who are they?

The American Civil Rights Union is a civil liberties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties) organization founded by former Reagan Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Administration) official Robert B. Carleson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Carleson) in 1998. It was founded in response to views that the most prominent civil liberties organization, the American Civil Liberties Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union), was too leftward leaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States);[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Union#cite_note-0) ACRU has been described as a conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_conservative_movement) civil liberties advocacy group.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Union#cite_note-1) The ACRU has filed amicus briefs in court cases involving the Boy Scouts of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America) including the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case of "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale)", defending the Boy Scouts' right to create their own criteria for membership by barring gay Scout leaders. Peter Ferrara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ferrara) is the ACRU Legal Director, and Susan Carleson is the Chairman.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Union#cite_note-2)
Surprising that he would have a cozy comparison between Reagan and Obama...

Look, I am not defending Obama because there are many things that he just isn't fixing, but pulling articles from people who have a clear agenda against someone to strengthen your "argument" isn't the intelligent route to take here. It took me less than 2 minutes to find out who this guy works for... the Google machine is pretty easy to use.

tutall
11-13-2011, 10:01 AM
Wait, a right wing talking head who has an undying affection for Reagan policies?! SHOCKING!

Peter Ferrara works for the American Civil Liberties Union... who are they?
Surprising that he would have a cozy comparison between Reagan and Obama...

Look, I am not defending Obama because there are many things that he just isn't fixing, but pulling articles from people who have a clear agenda against someone to strengthen your "argument" isn't the intelligent route to take here. It took me less than 2 minutes to find out who this guy works for... the Google machine is pretty easy to use.

So... instead of just complaining about sources prove him wrong... Show us your facts that show the economy is flourishing under Obama and the policies he has in place to fix things. Show us data that backs upwhat he as doing and a track record that shows us things will get fixed if we stay on course.... It isnt about who is writing the piece unless it is an opinion piece which this is not. This is a pretty clear case of this is what Regan did and this was his outcome vs. this is what Obama did andhow it is trending currently.

tutall
11-13-2011, 10:01 AM
dupe post

tutall
11-13-2011, 10:12 AM
triple post

freethrowtommy
11-13-2011, 12:52 PM
So... instead of just complaining about sources prove him wrong... Show us your facts that show the economy is flourishing under Obama and the policies he has in place to fix things. Show us data that backs upwhat he as doing and a track record that shows us things will get fixed if we stay on course.... It isnt about who is writing the piece unless it is an opinion piece which this is not. This is a pretty clear case of this is what Regan did and this was his outcome vs. this is what Obama did andhow it is trending currently.

Prior to Reagan we mostly ran up deficits in wartime or during economic downturns. However, part of the magic of Reaganomics were HUGE deficits. During Reagan's tenure (counting the budgets for which he was responsible, FY '82-FY '89), GDP rose an average of 7.3% which is great. However, gross debt rose an average of 14.2% per year. He entered office with a national debt of $994B (a number which had been falling since WWII) and left with a debt of over $2.6T. While he entered office at the end of a recession, his annual budget deficits were always at least double anything Carter signed at the height of the recession. Additionally, he GREW government. Not including military, total federal employees grew by over 300,000 during his Presidency. Many people say that median household income rose during his Presidency, which shows the great affect of Reaganomics. However, that's misleading since the bottom 80% saw their share of aggregate income fall from 55% to 53% during his Presidency. Where did that 2% go? The top 5% saw the entire increase. A big reason for all of these things? The top tax rate was 69.13% when Reagan took office. It was 28% when he left.
This was the beginning of the Reagan Revolution on which the past 30 years of our federal government's philosophy is based. The GDP saw increases, but the Gross Federal Debt as percent of GDP far outpaced it and the gains were seen amazingly disproportionately at the top. Some strides were made during the Clinton years (I'd give credit for that to the balance with the Republican Congress and a huge Internet bubble), but overall our philosophy has not changed a bit - even with changes in power based on Party.


The best argument against the GOP's "conservatism" argument are the 2002 - 2007 FY budgets. These were years in which the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Did they decrease government spending? No, they added $2.77 trillion to our debt, an average increase of 7.6% annually (Bush was responsible for almost $5.7T when he was done). The Gross debt to GDP ratio (which had fallen during the previous administration) rose almost 10% during that time. The federal government grew by 40,000 employees during that time. The top tax rate (which was increased during GHW Bush's term and then lowered during Clinton's) was decreased from 38.6% to 35%. And the top 20% grew to a greater than 50% share of aggregate income for the first time in our history.


My point with this is not to propose that the Dems are some greater solution. But the Republican's utter lack of humility toward their part of this mess disgusts me. Our current situation is the direct result of 30 years of these exact policies. We spent 30 years mortgaging everything our great grandparents built and saved to live high on the consumerist hog. This is at every level. Now the Republicans want to try to pass the ball for this to a President that's been in the job for less than two years. We need to dump them all (both parties) and start this thing over before they drive the bus off the cliff. If you weren't born into nine figures of family wealth they don't give a about you.


Source: [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals


Is that good enough for you?

Hilfiger1975
11-13-2011, 01:04 PM
Didn't Reagan have criminals working for him and many went to prison for?

mrveggieman
11-13-2011, 02:40 PM
Prior to Reagan we mostly ran up deficits in wartime or during economic downturns. However, part of the magic of Reaganomics were HUGE deficits. During Reagan's tenure (counting the budgets for which he was responsible, FY '82-FY '89), GDP rose an average of 7.3% which is great. However, gross debt rose an average of 14.2% per year. He entered office with a national debt of $994B (a number which had been falling since WWII) and left with a debt of over $2.6T. While he entered office at the end of a recession, his annual budget deficits were always at least double anything Carter signed at the height of the recession. Additionally, he GREW government. Not including military, total federal employees grew by over 300,000 during his Presidency. Many people say that median household income rose during his Presidency, which shows the great affect of Reaganomics. However, that's misleading since the bottom 80% saw their share of aggregate income fall from 55% to 53% during his Presidency. Where did that 2% go? The top 5% saw the entire increase. A big reason for all of these things? The top tax rate was 69.13% when Reagan took office. It was 28% when he left.
This was the beginning of the Reagan Revolution on which the past 30 years of our federal government's philosophy is based. The GDP saw increases, but the Gross Federal Debt as percent of GDP far outpaced it and the gains were seen amazingly disproportionately at the top. Some strides were made during the Clinton years (I'd give credit for that to the balance with the Republican Congress and a huge Internet bubble), but overall our philosophy has not changed a bit - even with changes in power based on Party.


The best argument against the GOP's "conservatism" argument are the 2002 - 2007 FY budgets. These were years in which the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Did they decrease government spending? No, they added $2.77 trillion to our debt, an average increase of 7.6% annually (Bush was responsible for almost $5.7T when he was done). The Gross debt to GDP ratio (which had fallen during the previous administration) rose almost 10% during that time. The federal government grew by 40,000 employees during that time. The top tax rate (which was increased during GHW Bush's term and then lowered during Clinton's) was decreased from 38.6% to 35%. And the top 20% grew to a greater than 50% share of aggregate income for the first time in our history.


My point with this is not to propose that the Dems are some greater solution. But the Republican's utter lack of humility toward their part of this mess disgusts me. Our current situation is the direct result of 30 years of these exact policies. We spent 30 years mortgaging everything our great grandparents built and saved to live high on the consumerist hog. This is at every level. Now the Republicans want to try to pass the ball for this to a President that's been in the job for less than two years. We need to dump them all (both parties) and start this thing over before they drive the bus off the cliff. If you weren't born into nine figures of family wealth they don't give a about you.


Source: [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals


Is that good enough for you?

Church!! :cheer2:

marvelousmarv
11-13-2011, 03:12 PM
when you talk agenda it is real funny because the whole mainstream media along with tons of liberal outlets push obama and any liberal...that is until it gets a little too messy like wiener...so it is clear we need people to tell the truth even though it may go against our current president
Wait, a right wing talking head who has an undying affection for Reagan policies?! SHOCKING!

Peter Ferrara works for the American Civil Liberties Union... who are they?
Surprising that he would have a cozy comparison between Reagan and Obama...

Look, I am not defending Obama because there are many things that he just isn't fixing, but pulling articles from people who have a clear agenda against someone to strengthen your "argument" isn't the intelligent route to take here. It took me less than 2 minutes to find out who this guy works for... the Google machine is pretty easy to use.

sanfran22
11-13-2011, 04:24 PM
http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/fig-2a.gif
http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/crunch3.htm
http://news.investors.com/Article/590383/201111030805/Income-Inequality-Rose-Under-Clinton-Obama.htm
This about sums it up. All that needs to be said.....It's a stupid argument that makes no sense. Of course the rich will get richer. They have the money for investments and know how to grow it. They also keep this country running. They pay the lions share for us all. The poor will get poorer. The have limited money to grow/save, investments and have the unskilled immigrants adding to the bottom totals bringing down the number. As I said before, give everyone a mill in this country. I gaurentee that will not solve anything.

freethrowtommy
11-13-2011, 05:25 PM
http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/fig-2a.gif
http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/crunch3.htm
http://news.investors.com/Article/590383/201111030805/Income-Inequality-Rose-Under-Clinton-Obama.htm
This about sums it up. All that needs to be said.....It's a stupid argument that makes no sense. Of course the rich will get richer. They have the money for investments and know how to grow it. They also keep this country running. They pay the lions share for us all. The poor will get poorer. The have limited money to grow/save, investments and have the unskilled immigrants adding to the bottom totals bringing down the number. As I said before, give everyone a mill in this country. I gaurentee that will not solve anything.

Glad to see you didn't want to talk about my post but instead post more websites to read, which are more right wing figureheads (yes, I looked them up). If you want to have a discussion, let me know, otherwise, I am not going to waste my time putting together something for you to read if you aren't going to. I can post plenty of websites which further my argument, but I thought maybe you would have some thoughts of your own to share with me.

pghin08
11-14-2011, 09:44 AM
I love people who cry "liberal media". I really do.

sanfran22
11-14-2011, 10:03 AM
I love people who cry "liberal media". I really do.

I love people who cry "right wing hacks" too!:winking0071:

sanfran22
11-14-2011, 10:09 AM
Glad to see you didn't want to talk about my post but instead post more websites to read, which are more right wing figureheads (yes, I looked them up). If you want to have a discussion, let me know, otherwise, I am not going to waste my time putting together something for you to read if you aren't going to. I can post plenty of websites which further my argument, but I thought maybe you would have some thoughts of your own to share with me.

Didn't realize you were asking me a question, but just skimming your rant your logic is flawed. It was a conservative congress that balanced the budget during Clintons years. The liberal tax and spend idea has been proven time and again to not work.
As I stated before, the gap that so many libs cry about is for a great many reasons. No time this a.m. to list everything, but I think in those links, it pretty much spells it out. But I'm sure you'll go back to attacking the source rather then the info. Typical.

pghin08
11-14-2011, 10:18 AM
I love people who cry "right wing hacks" too!:winking0071:

To be fair, I don't just call out "right wing hacks" like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. I'm just as critical of people like Arianna Huffington and Keith Olbermann.

sanfran22
11-14-2011, 10:23 AM
To be fair, I don't just call out "right wing hacks" like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. I'm just as critical of people like Arianna Huffington and Keith Olbermann.

I wasn't really directing that at you. But I can't believe you don't think there is a liberal bias in the media.
How can you explain the recent media outlets running every story on Herman Cain's abuse and never running stories on Obama's ties to Bill Ayers ,an admitted terrorist?
Or Perry's gaffe on the agencies but not Obama's Corpsman gaffe? There is no doubt a double standard in the media.

pghin08
11-14-2011, 10:39 AM
I wasn't really directing that at you. But I can't believe you don't think there is a liberal bias in the media.
How can you explain the recent media outlets running every story on Herman Cain's abuse and never running stories on Obama's ties to Bill Ayers ,an admitted terrorist?
Or Perry's gaffe on the agencies but not Obama's Corpsman gaffe? There is no doubt a double standard in the media.

Not sure what you mean about the lack of coverage of the Bill Ayers thing. Heck, it was even brought up in a debate. Plus, Cain's sexual abuse allegations make for interesting news to most. It's juicy, and the media LOVES juicy. Pretty sure people wrote stories about Bill Clinton when he was accused of it.

Perry's gaffe and Obama's corpsman gaffe are way different. Perry's mistake was broadcast live for millions of people to see during a highly-touted debate. Obama's mistake, on the other hand, was broadcast on C-SPAN, for all 12 of their viewers to see. It's a akin to a kicker missing a field goal to win a pre-season game and a kicker missing a field goal to win a playoff game. Everyone remembers Scott Norwood. And right now, Rick Perry is Scott Norwood.

Hilfiger1975
11-14-2011, 10:42 AM
I have a question since i'm new to all this politics "fun." If some one has never voted once in their life does that still make them a "liberal?" Because i get a kick out of how people enjoy being grouped up into stereotypical titles and accept being a drone with only a base set of "ideals."

sanfran22
11-14-2011, 10:58 AM
Not sure what you mean about the lack of coverage of the Bill Ayers thing. Heck, it was even brought up in a debate. Plus, Cain's sexual abuse allegations make for interesting news to most. It's juicy, and the media LOVES juicy. Pretty sure people wrote stories about Bill Clinton when he was accused of it.

Perry's gaffe and Obama's corpsman gaffe are way different. Perry's mistake was broadcast live for millions of people to see during a highly-touted debate. Obama's mistake, on the other hand, was broadcast on C-SPAN, for all 12 of their viewers to see. It's a akin to a kicker missing a field goal to win a pre-season game and a kicker missing a field goal to win a playoff game. Everyone remembers Scott Norwood. And right now, Rick Perry is Scott Norwood.

That debate was the only time Ayers was discussed. It's a pretty big issue.
Regardless of where Obama gaffed, you can bet that if Bush said something, it was covered. It's very obvious that if the media agrees with the stance of a politician, they will try and protect them.
Here's just one documented instance.....
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/27/msnbc-protects-obama

pghin08
11-14-2011, 11:06 AM
That debate was the only time Ayers was discussed. It's a pretty big issue.
Regardless of where Obama gaffed, you can bet that if Bush said something, it was covered. It's very obvious that if the media agrees with the stance of a politician, they will try and protect them.
Here's just one documented instance.....
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/27/msnbc-protects-obama

First off, I don't go to MSNBC for any news whatsoever. Just like I don't go to Fox News. MSNBC has seen Fox's business model, and is trying to emulate it.

Per Ayers, many media outlets did investigations, only to find that they really weren't that close after all.

All I'm saying is that if you don't read or see anything critical of Obama or Democrats, you're not paying attention.

And one more thing, I always rail against particular sources (Fox News, Huff Po, etc.), so I think I should give the media outlets that I use and trust:

Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC, Reuters, and AP.

If it's not there, it's probably not news.