Lucky...

Does it have him blowing it up? If so, it is funny as FR was a coward, bith personally and militarily. What did FR do after the beirut barracks were bombed, killing 300+?

So being a senile, slipped-jawed asshole denotes the sign of a good president? Besides, everyone knew Reagan was militarily a pussy, both personally and as a president.

Reagan, like so many before and after, pledged to reduce government. And like all of the others, he utterly failed to do so. It's easier to say than to do. Spending will increase with inflation and population increases,but the trick is to increase receipts, Clinton's last 3 years and eevn spilled into GWB's first year there was a surplus http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/hist.html Section 1, Table 1.1

What war with the USSR? The Bay of Pigs was over 20 years ago (before FR took office), so I assume you're talking conventional war. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/art6-w04.htm The USSR didn't see an acft carrier until 1975, 3 more by 84 for a total of 4 in the midst of diaper-boy's terms. In 1975 the USSR commissioned the Kiev, the first of a new class of forty-thousand-ton carriers designed to provide organic fighter cover for the Soviet navy. Between 1978 and 1984 three more Kiev-class carriers were commissioned: Minsk (1978), Novorossiysk (1982), and Admiral Gorshkov (1984). Kiev-class carriers (referred to by the Russians as “heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers”) were conventionally powered and capable of carrying twelve Yak-38 Forger vertical/short-takeoff-and-landing (VSTOL) fighters and twenty helicopters. Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the subsequent emasculation of the Russian navy, all four carriers were decommissioned. For a military to be successful at home, they must have a military designed with tanks and homeland forces. For a military to win away, they must have a massive navy with a lot of acft carriers and the USSR did not. NOTE TO ADD: The USSR's 4 carriers were pathetic, one held only 12 VTOL acft. Here I see in the 1960's we had 4 carriers that held 90 runway fighters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk_class_aircraft_carrier I see here that by the time the USSR had built their first acft carrier, we already had 68 0f them, some sunk, cancelled, scrapped or decommissioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_aircraft_carriers We have been making acft carroers since 1922, the USSR took their first whack in 1975 with a horrible 12-VTOL capacity ship. So where was the credible conventional threat? And that doesn't address that before FR took office the USSR had deployed their homeland-based military to Afghanistan for FR's entire terms, so they were strung out anyway. And that doesn't address our great contribution of wheat to the USSR eitehr that would have stopped in time of war with them. The Cold War was merely posturing ideological diffs, there was never a real threat of war, I think we all knew it then, we certainly know it now. As for Iran, Carter had signed the Algiers Accord the day before diaper-boy took office, that is solely why the hostages were released. No one was afraid of FR the DB, the Beirut barracks bombings showed us that as Reagan did ZERO. So let's summarize: - Reagan was personally a war dodger - Reagan was not militarily feared - Reagan ruined the economy/debt - Reagan pardoned almost as many as Clinton, incl his elitist punk ass buddy Steinbrenner I'm searching and seartching, I just can't find a positive thing old crusty diaper boy did but to boost Depends stock perhaps. So Bill, tell me what Reagan did in a positve light for the US.

Come again. Show me where a major federal tax has actually ever made the economy better. Show me where major federal tax cuts have made teh economy better. When taxes were up the 90% range, in the 40's and 50's, if we were willing to quit the warring, then taxes could be lowered to the 50's-60's, but lower than that it has led to a mess; show me otherwise.

The article speaks of complicating factors This is where the comparisons diverge as Reagan’s policies served to make the economy better. Obama's policies can not and will not do that. (Or Bush's policies at the end of his term) Oh, show me the policies that Reagn instituted to make things better. Illustrate wheat he inherited and what he did to fix them and of course, the result.

In the present, Siena has Obama ranked as #15, your fascist leader at #18 and falling. As the debt becomes more of an issue, your hero will fall more and more. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/07/01/Obama-No-15-in-presidential-rankings/UPI-29711278023634/

The two president's popularity comparisons are the only thing that can be paired. Reagan inherited a flat but stable economy so he and Volkers contracted the money supply to lower interest rates/inflation, it drove unemp from 7.5% to 10.8%. Obama inherited a skyrocketing unemp rate that increased 3.4% the year preceeding his taking office, Obama instituted a 787B stimulus to save industries and save families. Reagon doesn't give a fuck about people, Obama panders to suffering people. THis is also BS: "I think that presidents as a whole get more credit than they deserve and more blame than they deserve," said Kaufman, referring to presidential approval and the economy. Consider the issue of unemployment. Early in Reagan's tenure, it was over 10 percent, as it was for Obama. It's the policies that drive these issues and the expected results; Reagan could only expect people to be hurting if you contract the money supply, whereas Obama could only expect people to do better if saves the auto industry, institutes stimulus, etc. Guess what? The exact results occurred with Reagan's / Volkers' plan; it drove up unemployment. I agree that the Republican-made mess is now being thrown at Obama as, "how could you?" Meanwhile the Repubs are shrugging their shoulders saying, "what did we do?" "Reagan had one advantage in that he had a clear ideology, so his supporters would vote for him because he represented their values," Pfiffner said. "Obama, on the other hand, despite accusations of being a socialist, etc., is a moderate who has made many compromises that have hurt him with his base." Right, all the ideologues rally behind Reagan, Obama is moe unknown and more flexible, so that may hurt him. Reagan and his electorate were impervious to data that reflected his works, he just clammered, "tax cuts my friends" until the cows came home w/o actually understanding or caring what the outcome was. Obama will ultimately be judged on whether the things he does to help the economy actually work, Kaufman said. He doesn't think they will and predicts that Obama will be a one-term President. Even Clinton, who inherited a recovering economy, took until the start of his 2nd term to turn teh corner; GHWB took the hit for Reagan's economy and subsequent needed tax increase. Obama inherited an economy still nosediving, had to spend a lot to stop the bleeding and won't turn the corner until mid 2nd term if he is elected. It is possible that Obama is a 1-term president due to this, idiot Americans want years of depression formation to be cleared in months. It is a shame that the senile turd, "tax cuts my friends" wasn't elected, we would be in total depression now, but would have 5+ terms of consecutive D's coming, just as with the first depression. There is no similarity between what Reagan did to help the ailing economy in the early 1980s versus what Obama did between 2008 and 2010. Reagan cut taxes. Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars to kick start the economy. Since primarily the rich pay taxes, this supports what I was saying about Reagan pandering to the rich, Obama the poor and MC.

I'm not gonna read it all, it's basically just a, "taxes are bad" article, I get it. Even thi taxes are almost as low as they have ever been, you still want them lower. Since WWI taxes have been in the 20's only twice, once right before the Great Depression and as fascist pig Ronnie tripled thedebt; nothing good has ever come from low taxes, yet you clammer on as if there has. Back to your usual unsubstantiated rant.

See, you and yours have to edit this crap to *TRY* to make a point, albiet a false one. Whereas as me and mine can post a real, unedited vid to make ours..... sucks to be on the other side. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx7a3leZJJI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related So really, save the inane BS for children's forums, it is your representatives are are fools.

Now, class, as you can see this is an example of how she shows how she gathers the whole level of "Respect" that she demands here. Classic ad hominem; try to disqualify the poster over a non-related issue rather than address the issue; my you look out of gas.

Bloomberg and Leading Human Events; they don't even try to pretend to be non-partisan like Bloomberg: Leading Conservative Media Sicen 1944. Really, where was the Heritage Foundation or Cato on this? Why waste your keystrokes publishing a RW rag when you would certainly call me on Moveon.or if I were stupid enough to post that as a citation? What caused teh mess was this: - Hammer tax rates down - This causes the rich to retain their money and not circulate it, esp in light of a minor recession and pending war. - Money becomes scarce, so teh Fed Chair has to lower int rates, lower. lower, lower to try to motivate spending and stimulate the economy. - This ends up making house prices in the inverse of int rates and they soar. All the other Fannie/Freddie BS would have ended up in a lot of bad mortgages BUT NOT AT DOUBLE THE HOUSE PRICE, which would have been a mess, but a controllable mess as the houses could be resold at basically what they foreclosed at. So keep posting RW trash and rejecting left media and calling yourself a moderate or even a RWer with a balanced media reference.

Yep, down 361 points - poor babies. They may suck the market down a bit more, then greed takes over and they buy cheap, driving teh market up. They just can't help themselves.

Lucky, grab a napkin and wipe the spittle off your chin. You put up all of these examples of how much better we're doing and I simply stated that I would hope we would see some effect after that kind of spending. And what has been the effect of all the deficit spending that was perpetrated on America since 1980??? When your hero W left office the pile of voo DOO DOO economic failure was stacked up to 11 TRILLION+ with policies in place to drive it FAR HIGHER no matter what the current Administration did. Right, he applauded Reagan's deficit spending, slams Obama's when on the verge of a total collapse. Yet no mention of the 700B GWB bank bailout or the 300B in bank bailout money returned AS A RESULT OF OBAMA'S TARP MONEY REQUIREMENTS. I just want to know where all the republicans who actually practice fiscal responsibility went to. A whole lot of the current crop mouth the words... but like the rest of them for the last 30 years they say one thing and do something far different. Its kind of like all of them who mouth the words "family values" yet keep getting caught at gay bars, or with gay lovers, or molesting their children. It is indeed a different party from what once was the party of Lincoln. Its too bad these shit for brains can't actually vote for someone that will actually live up to those Republican talking points. Sure, the changing of the gaurd occurred in the 1920's, the last real awesome president of that era was Teddy R. Wilson was ok, a bit of a moralist, but a sign of the emerging Dems. Then the trio that forever chaged the world, the corrupt Harding / Coolidge / Hoover trio illustrated the Lincoln Repubs were dead and burried. A bright spot was Eisenhower who kept taxes high under a Dem congress, the debt actually fell, despite what crusty McSame says he got us out of Korea, and he helped transition us to a peacetime economy. He also warned us of teh M.I.C. and appointed Warren as Chief Justice. He was a throwback, a reminder of what a great party teh R's were at one point. Under LBJ he was, in some ways a throwback to the fucked up Dems, but with the 1964 Civil Rts Act he showed he had emerged as the diff between the old Dems and the new Dems. Then we had garbage from the right from there forward with the exception of GHWB who was slightly and apologetically better. Given the garbage he came from, he did little but it was a lot by contrast, so I give him credit. He should have raised taxes more, but he was being a politician and didn't want to rock the boat too much. His own party was too stupid to really get him, in fact, his deeds didn't really come throught as noble until Clinton had such success furthering his policies. GHWB is a president that I feel will be helped by history, GWB and the fascist pig only have down to go from here as the debt becomes more and more an issue and people can reference a simple chart such as this: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html 1/2 way down, the red and blue charts really bring it home, esp the blue chart corrected for inflation. All the timeline transference in the world can't adjust for the obvious: Republicans just can't say no, yet carry this stigma of the real fiscally responsible ones.

Lucky, grab a napkin and wipe the spittle off your chin. You put up all of these examples of how much better we're doing and I simply stated that I would hope we would see some effect after that kind of spending. And what has been the effect of all the deficit spending that was perpetrated on America since 1980??? When your hero W left office the pile of voo DOO DOO economic failure was stacked up to 11 TRILLION+ with policies in place to drive it FAR HIGHER no matter what the current Administration did. Right, he applauded Reagan's deficit spending, slams Obama's when on the verge of a total collapse. Yet no mention of the 700B GWB bank bailout or the 300B in bank bailout money returned AS A RESULT OF OBAMA'S TARP MONEY REQUIREMENTS.

Lucky, grab a napkin and wipe the spittle off your chin. You put up all of these examples of how much better we're doing and I simply stated that I would hope we would see some effect after that kind of spending. Ahhh, can't make a point without this? Reagan-loving neo-cns have such a hard time with that, huh? See, the diff is that Reagan and GWB inherited from a stable economy to a wonderful economy yet felt the need to chop taxes and massivley deficit spend waaaaay too much and even with that massive revenue spending glut they still managed to have less receipts than they had spending. SO there goes your theory that throwing a lot of deficit-spent money can bring in + receipts. However there is a degree of truth to what you say, the success now has been as a result of deficit spending. Now, see if you can follow along: WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE IF YOU WERE IN OBAAM'S POSITION? - NOTHING - DEFICIT SPEND - TAX - NSPEND - ???? Do try to follow along, I made it as simple and clear as I could. A non-answer is an acquiescence that Obama is doing the right thing.

There you go again, thrying that whole thinking thing . . you should really leave that to someone more qualified and able. http://www.bea.gov/...l/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://data.bls.gov/...aph_name=LN_cpsbref3 http://finance.yahoo.com/...=on;source=undefined So the DJIA greatly improving, jobs stopping teh 3.4% unemp jump, then declining .6% and the GDP going from the toilet to sky isn't the improvement you were looking for either? Then tellme what areas of improvement you were looking for. Well if you dump the kind of money we have into the economy I would hope you'd get some effect. Actually, it's a pretty sad result considering something like 450 BILLION DOLLARS has been spent already. Yes, 3 choices: - Deficit spend - Tax and spend - Wait for it to fix itself Which would you have fancied? Hoover tried the third then 2.5 years later raised incomer taxes 260%, business and estate taxes also went way up. Really, what would you do? Live in the "Tax cuts my freinds" dellusion? If so, point out one that has worked. So yes, dumping billions was neccessary as a bandaid to avoid another great depression. Reagan took a flat but stable economy and chopped taxes / dumped billions and tripled the debt, Obama is forced to dump billions and will allow the GWB tax cut to sunset and eventually this mess will subside. It took Clinton until 96 to really turn the corner, altho gains were made fairly soon in his admin after his tax increase from 31% top brkt to 40%. Of course he had GHWB raising taxes a puny 3% to start the healing. So what would you do?

Yes. But without the childishness that your post exudes. The above and . . . the fact that I didn't vote for him. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. sorry I dont think ANYONE here is gullible enough to believe that hog wash. It doesn't matter what you think. We are all used to you ignmoring facts and reality anyway. Asked and answered. Well? WHEN HAS A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT LED TO OVERALL ECON0MIC BENEFIT? You never have answered it, wanna keep looking foolish and runnin, cool by me. We get it, there never has been a major fed tax cut that has led to overall economic benefit. Your silence is deafening. You really do have trouble redaing when you don't like what it says. So by: During the Clinton years . . his admin reaped the benifit of earlier legislation. That is your indirect and completely ambiguous way of saying that as Reaganomics finally caught up, 4 years after Reagan left office and started to work???? See, you're running, you just think dropping 1-liners somehow works. Since you can't frame a maj fed tax cut that has led to economic benefit, you have to use transferrence. Now that we've drug out of you your answer, what tax cut are you referring to? Or are you gonna blame the tripling of the debt on Carter and give credit for Clinton's success to Reagan/GHWB? I mean, finish your fantasy and move timelines as you need them. It's fun to just move economic activity fwd or reverse as it fits for your args, huh? So I guess the Great Depression was really Wilson's fault, huh? And the recovery was really the apathy of Hoover just waiting for it to fix itself, huh?

Yes. But without the childishness that your post exudes. The above and . . . the fact that I didn't vote for him. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. sorry I dont think ANYONE here is gullible enough to believe that hog wash. It doesn't matter what you think. We are all used to you ignmoring facts and reality anyway. Asked and answered. Well? WHEN HAS A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT LED TO OVERALL ECON0MIC BENEFIT? You never have answered it, wanna keep looking foolish and runnin, cool by me. We get it, there never has been a major fed tax cut that has led to overall economic benefit. Your silence is deafening.

Yes. But without the childishness that your post exudes. The above and . . . the fact that I didn't vote for him. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. sorry I dont think ANYONE here is gullible enough to believe that hog wash. It doesn't matter what you think. We are all used to you ignmoring facts and reality anyway. Well? WHEN HAS A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT LED TO OVERALL ECON0MIC BENEFIT?

Not ignoring it . . . I just fail to see a question. Here . . study this for a while and come back in three or four weeks when you have it. Question Here, I'll dumb it down as much as I can: WHEN HAS A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT LED TO OVERALL ECON0MIC BENEFIT? There, now ignore that for a while/forver and claim victory. During the Clinton years . . his admin reaped the benifit of earlier legislation. Now, go do as you were told. OMG you just admitted that the fucked up economy that Obama is dealing with is becaue his admin is being fucked by the disater of the previous legislation and gross mismanagement of the fucknugget you voted for TWICE. He's busy running from the qustion: WHEN HAS A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT LED TO OVERALL ECON0MIC BENEFIT? They all do, the best that anyone has come up with is the cap gains cut from 28% to 20% which - Wasn't major and - Revs actually fell off a hair after the cut

Not ignoring it . . . I just fail to see a question. Here . . study this for a while and come back in three or four weeks when you have it. Question Here, I'll dumb it down as much as I can: WHEN HAS A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT LED TO OVERALL ECON0MIC BENEFIT? There, now ignore that for a while/forver and claim victory. During the Clinton years . . his admin reaped the benifit of earlier legislation. Now, go do as you were told. Which legislation, the one where GHWB raised taxes and cut the military overblown by your fascist leader? If so, I agree, but he went further and cut more spending, increased more taxes. So either make clear your ambiguous point or back to answering the question, which was limited to Clinton, BTW: WHEN HAS A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT LED TO OVERALL ECON0MIC BENEFIT?

Not ignoring it . . . I just fail to see a question. Here . . study this for a while and come back in three or four weeks when you have it. Question Here, I'll dumb it down as much as I can: WHEN HAS A MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT LED TO OVERALL ECON0MIC BENEFIT? There, now ignore that for a while/forver and claim victory.

There you go again, thrying that whole thinking thing . . you should really leave that to someone more qualified and able. http://www.bea.gov/...l/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://data.bls.gov/...aph_name=LN_cpsbref3 http://finance.yahoo.com/...=on;source=undefined So the DJIA greatly improving, jobs stopping teh 3.4% unemp jump, then declining .6% and the GDP going from the toilet to sky isn't the improvement you were looking for either? Then tellme what areas of improvement you were looking for.

It's allright....we just gotta start realizing that all politicians are on the same side....duh. it's genius! Theirs? No: Republicans = side of corporations / wealthy Dems = side of the people I guess RWers want to pretend that it's all teh same since their side has fucked things up. And if it was all the same, as your side claims, then you wouldn't be so much for getting your side in. WOW................... Simply WOW who "hires" people to work? Who PAYS for Building factories for people to make a living in? Who pays the bulk of taxes so you can blame the big guy? WOW, I mean, WOW, OMG, WOW. Is that sufficeint or are more wow's needed? Then fall to the rest of the Neo-cons and fail to show me a tax cut that has led to prosperity. I didn't think so, back to your normally sceduled lock-stepped cliches. Issue: Costs / taxes ME: Then fall to the rest of the Neo-cons and fail to show me a tax cut that has led to prosperity. HINT: I was aksing a question based upon the issues raised. Just because it's one you don't like doesn't mean it's not a valid question in-line with the issue. Go get a new job. Taxes are alomost as low as they have ever been since WWI, so that's a lmae rhetorical question. Payroll taxes are EXTREMELY LOW as compared to the rest of the world. OK, I'll reiterate my childish BS question for you to ignore: Then fall to the rest of the Neo-cons and fail to show me a tax cut that has led to prosperity. Now ignore it and declare victory.