For those that think Obama is doing an awesome job...

[sanfran22]

I give you food for thought......
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...s-and-figures/

[OBOMBA]

hes just a scape goat puppet in reality he has no power

[NyFanCam01]

Can you people just chill out..
Maybe get a 40 hour per week type job and live life.

[freethrowtommy]

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 organization founded by former Reagan Administration official Robert B. Carleson in 1998. It was founded in response to views that the most prominent civil liberties organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, was too leftward leaning;[1] ACRU has been described as a conservative civil liberties advocacy group.[2] The ACRU has filed amicus briefs in court cases involving the Boy Scouts of America including the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case of "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 is the ACRU Legal Director, and Susan Carleson is the Chairman.[3]

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]

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]

dupe post

[tutall]

triple post

[freethrowtommy]

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]

Didn't Reagan have criminals working for him and many went to prison for?

[mrveggieman]

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!!