[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just do the math
[/quote]
Please correct me if my math sucks as much as your memory 
Unemployment is at 10% and that number is 8.4 mil. so there must be 84 million jobs in America and Reagan created 25% of them , That is fucking amazing.
You know Zeb if Obamaās recession is in fact worst then the one Reagan inherited then if it recovers we will be able to say Obama created 40,000,000 jobs
Does anyone know how many jobs Roosevelt created ? it has to be billions
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way the only reason Mondale won Minnesota was because that was his home state. Ha ha, Reagan would have taken that too if Mondale was not the Senator of that state.
WOW, what an unpopular guyā¦Ha[/quote]
these are the Vice Presidents that became President
John Adams
George Bush
Thomas Jefferson
Martin Van Buren
Presidents who became President by succession
Chester A Arthur
Calvin Coolidge
Millard Fillmore
Gerald R Ford
*
Andrew Johnson
Lyndon B Johnson
Theodore Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
John Tyler
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just do the math
[/quote]
Please correct me if my math sucks as much as your memory Unemployment is at 10% and that number is 8.4 mil. so there must be 84 million jobs in America and Reagan created 25% of them , That is fucking amazing.
You know Zeb if Obamaās recession is in fact worst then the one Reagan inherited then if it recovers we will be able to say Obama created 40,000,000 jobs
Does anyone know how many jobs Roosevelt created ? it has to be billions
[/quote]
Iāve repeatedly said that the jobs were created from the point Carter left office to the time Reagan hit his 7th year as President. Sure some of those were lost during Carter and regained during Reagan. thatās what you call going from a President who is clueless to one who has a good understanding of the private sector
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just do the math
[/quote]
Please correct me if my math sucks as much as your memory Unemployment is at 10% and that number is 8.4 mil. so there must be 84 million jobs in America and Reagan created 25% of them , That is fucking amazing.
You know Zeb if Obamaās recession is in fact worst then the one Reagan inherited then if it recovers we will be able to say Obama created 40,000,000 jobs
Does anyone know how many jobs Roosevelt created ? it has to be billions
[/quote]
Iāve repeatedly said that the jobs were created from the point Carter left office to the time Reagan hit his 7th year as President. Sure some of those were lost during Carter and regained during Reagan. thatās what you call going from a President who is clueless to one who has a good understanding of the private sector
[/quote]
Carter was not clueless the worst thing he did was take the Shaw out of power , the best thing he did was approach the oil shortage , which Reagan undid pronto. Just think how far we would have been down the road to energy independence .
Regan did not have a good understanding of the Private sector , He was just anti union ,
Had Reagan had a good understanding of the private sector he would not have thrown the baby out with the bath water, Meaning he would have kept the Steel industry intact and forced it to compete . So he threw away all the jobs the tax revenue that the employees and the companies paid. And he put all the towns on welfare . That is true Business Savy 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then you can be wrong along with Pitbull. At the time Reagan was the heir to the great conservative movement which was begun by Barry Goldwater 20 or so years prior to Reaganās election as President. All that was heard in the media was that Reagan was too conservative and that he was going to get us in a war with the former Soviet Union.
Many said, at the time, he was too conservative to win a general election. However, his mass popularity caused many democrats to defect. They were called āBlue Dog Democrats.ā One reason Bush Sr. won in 92ā was that he was able to keep those democrats. Later we all saw that Bush Sr. was in fact NOT a real conservative, but thatās another story.
Reaganās enormous popularity cut across party lines and caused him to be one of the most popular Presidents in the history of our country, even though Pitbull and his entire family hated him-
Iām certainly not saying that Reaganās legacy has not been protected by conservatives, but it has also been very accurately represented. You only need to study a little political history (please donāt listen to your college Profs.) on your own to fully realize that not only was Reagan very conservative, incredibly popular, but also one of the best modern day Presidents that America has had. In fact, so popular that there was talk of putting his likeness on Mount Rushmore. They also wanted to put his likeness on certain coinage, which will eventually come to pass as soon as we sweep the filth from the White House.[/quote]
Reagan was not a āreal conservativeā either, if we use a pre-Reagan measure for what a political conservative was, and not the post-Regan social-conservative-redefinition.
I have studied this, a little. Iāve also been alive just long enough to watch his magical transformation from typical partisan president (those on his side tended to like him, the other half really didnāt) to Savior of America and Destroyer of Soviets.
Iāll grant that Reagan was āconservativeā, if, like I mentioned above, we using the post-Reagan definition of conservative retroactively: Berry Goldwater would not have seen him as a real conservative, and the amount of money he spent on moral crusades against evils like marijuana attest to this. He also had not respect for the rule of law or the constitution: see IranContra.
He did lay a fine groundwork for the Goldwater-esque conservative movement to be hijacked, and for Neo-Conservative philosophy to become the conventional or mainstream brand of American conservatism.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Regan did not have a good understanding of the Private sector , He was just anti union ,[/quote]
That was one of his strong suits. I know, I know, he hurt your family and Aunt Beth still hates him. I get, I get it.
Ha ha, and he created almost 20 million private sector jobs. You see, you can wine about what happened to your family, and I donāt blame you. But you canāt deny the facts. Well you can, but Iāll just keep reminding you. And after 40 or 50 posts weāll accomplish nothing. But, Iāll keep posting whenever I have the time. Reminding you of the facts.
I know you hate Ronald Reagan, I get it, I get it. Just keep in mind your hate is misguided and based on nothing but emotion.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then you can be wrong along with Pitbull. At the time Reagan was the heir to the great conservative movement which was begun by Barry Goldwater 20 or so years prior to Reaganās election as President. All that was heard in the media was that Reagan was too conservative and that he was going to get us in a war with the former Soviet Union.
Many said, at the time, he was too conservative to win a general election. However, his mass popularity caused many democrats to defect. They were called āBlue Dog Democrats.ā One reason Bush Sr. won in 92ā was that he was able to keep those democrats. Later we all saw that Bush Sr. was in fact NOT a real conservative, but thatās another story.
Reaganās enormous popularity cut across party lines and caused him to be one of the most popular Presidents in the history of our country, even though Pitbull and his entire family hated him-
Iām certainly not saying that Reaganās legacy has not been protected by conservatives, but it has also been very accurately represented. You only need to study a little political history (please donāt listen to your college Profs.) on your own to fully realize that not only was Reagan very conservative, incredibly popular, but also one of the best modern day Presidents that America has had. In fact, so popular that there was talk of putting his likeness on Mount Rushmore. They also wanted to put his likeness on certain coinage, which will eventually come to pass as soon as we sweep the filth from the White House.[/quote]
Reagan was not a āreal conservativeā either, if we use a pre-Reagan measure for what a political conservative was, and not the post-Regan social-conservative-redefinition.
I have studied this, a little. Iāve also been alive just long enough to watch his magical transformation from typical partisan president (those on his side tended to like him, the other half really didnāt) to Savior of America and Destroyer of Soviets.
Iāll grant that Reagan was āconservativeā, if, like I mentioned above, we using the post-Reagan definition of conservative retroactively: Berry Goldwater would not have seen him as a real conservative, and the amount of money he spent on moral crusades against evils like marijuana attest to this. He also had not respect for the rule of law or the constitution: see IranContra.
He did lay a fine groundwork for the Goldwater-esque conservative movement to be hijacked, and for Neo-Conservative philosophy to become the conventional or mainstream brand of American conservatism.[/quote]
LOL, you are so far off the mark. You have somehow mixed the current libertarian movement with the conservative movement. There is a growing trend to think that ārealā conservatives are libertarians at heart. There is no truth to that, none. But you want to believe it, I know. Do you honestly think Barry Goldwater was against stricter pot laws in 1964? Do you realize what he wanted to do to the radicals who marched in the late 60ās? LOL, please stop it, you will soon achieve pitbull status. Reagan was a Goldwater conservative. I lived through it, remember it well and know what has happened since. But like all Internet debates there comes a time when itās just not worth it, you will think what you want and quite frankly why should I care? Iām only stringing Pit along because he amuses me.
Youāre just flat out wrong and need to read more about Goldwater and his plans and policies. There is probably hope for you if you just dig a little regarding Godlwater youāll see the truth. Pit on the other hand is so filled with hate because of what he accuses Reagan of doing to his family that it borders on some sort of psychosis. Granted that isnāt usually a funny topic, and I know I shouldnāt egg him on, but I just canāt help it. I said it a long time ago, the Internet brings out the worst in me.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then you can be wrong along with Pitbull. At the time Reagan was the heir to the great conservative movement which was begun by Barry Goldwater 20 or so years prior to Reaganās election as President. All that was heard in the media was that Reagan was too conservative and that he was going to get us in a war with the former Soviet Union.
Many said, at the time, he was too conservative to win a general election. However, his mass popularity caused many democrats to defect. They were called āBlue Dog Democrats.ā One reason Bush Sr. won in 92ā was that he was able to keep those democrats. Later we all saw that Bush Sr. was in fact NOT a real conservative, but thatās another story.
Reaganās enormous popularity cut across party lines and caused him to be one of the most popular Presidents in the history of our country, even though Pitbull and his entire family hated him-
Iām certainly not saying that Reaganās legacy has not been protected by conservatives, but it has also been very accurately represented. You only need to study a little political history (please donāt listen to your college Profs.) on your own to fully realize that not only was Reagan very conservative, incredibly popular, but also one of the best modern day Presidents that America has had. In fact, so popular that there was talk of putting his likeness on Mount Rushmore. They also wanted to put his likeness on certain coinage, which will eventually come to pass as soon as we sweep the filth from the White House.[/quote]
Reagan was not a āreal conservativeā either, if we use a pre-Reagan measure for what a political conservative was, and not the post-Regan social-conservative-redefinition.
I have studied this, a little. Iāve also been alive just long enough to watch his magical transformation from typical partisan president (those on his side tended to like him, the other half really didnāt) to Savior of America and Destroyer of Soviets.
Iāll grant that Reagan was āconservativeā, if, like I mentioned above, we using the post-Reagan definition of conservative retroactively: Berry Goldwater would not have seen him as a real conservative, and the amount of money he spent on moral crusades against evils like marijuana attest to this. He also had not respect for the rule of law or the constitution: see IranContra.
He did lay a fine groundwork for the Goldwater-esque conservative movement to be hijacked, and for Neo-Conservative philosophy to become the conventional or mainstream brand of American conservatism.[/quote]
LOL, you are so far off the mark. You have somehow mixed the current libertarian movement with the conservative movement. There is a growing trend to think that ārealā conservatives are libertarians at heart. There is no truth to that, none. But you want to believe it, I know. Do you honestly think Barry Goldwater was against stricter pot laws in 1964? Do you realize what he wanted to do to the radicals who marched in the late 60ās? LOL, please stop it, you will soon achieve pitbull status. Reagan was a Goldwater conservative. I lived through it, remember it well and know what has happened since. But like all Internet debates there comes a time when itās just not worth it, you will think what you want and quite frankly why should I care? Iām only stringing Pit along because he amuses me.
Youāre just flat out wrong and need to read more about Goldwater and his plans and policies. There is probably hope for you if you just dig a little regarding Godlwater youāll see the truth. Pit on the other hand is so filled with hate because of what he accuses Reagan of doing to his family that it borders on some sort of psychosis. Granted that isnāt usually a funny topic, and I know I shouldnāt egging him on, but I just canāt help it. I said it a long time ago, the Internet brings out the worst in me. :)[/quote]
Your use of the word āConservativeā is interesting, and specific. Maybe you should flush out what you mean for us.
You are right, in a strict technical sense, conservative means to remain the same, to resist change, to maintain the status quo, to maintain, preserve and enhance existing institutions at the expense/opposition of change.
So you could technically have communist conservatives, if they grew up in an authoritarian communist society and their goal was the preservation of that status quo and those institutions. Right?
But in modern American parlance āConservativeā has for at least the last century, been associated with low-taxes, federalism, and small government. It has continued to be associated with those ideas, despite politicians like Reagan, who you consider conservative, expanding the size and scope of the federal government, and adopting draconian policies about drugs and other social issues.
I think a more accurate way to think about it is with the two-axis/scale system, where one axis/variable is economic, with a true free-market (zero regulation) on one side and communism/communalism on the other. The other axis represents the role of government is societal and moral issues, on the one extreme you have Anarchy on the other total authoritarianism.
The problem with this scale is that modern ā-ismsā are rarely philosophically sound. I think āConservativesā should find themselves in the āfree-market/anarchyā quadrant (not necessarily at the extreme). And much of their lip service is inline with this. But the fact is that our āConservativeā politicians, at least as long as Iāve been around, at the national level have all be authoritarian leaning hypocrites who claim to support free-markets, while playing the ācorporate welfareā/subsidies/military industrial economy game.
If Reagan was a conservative, then I need your definition conservative, because it seems like you (and many on your team) want it to be a liquid, ill-defined word, that we all recognize when we see, but isnāt beholden to a consistent political philosophy: what Iād call the social conservatives. Folks who want the gubbermint out of their lives, expect when it comes to enforcing their personal code of ethics and morals on the greater population (a.k.a. social policy), drug-policy, medicare, social-security, law-enforcement and the military. Other than that, they want they government small and out of their lives, they promise.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then you can be wrong along with Pitbull. At the time Reagan was the heir to the great conservative movement which was begun by Barry Goldwater 20 or so years prior to Reaganās election as President. All that was heard in the media was that Reagan was too conservative and that he was going to get us in a war with the former Soviet Union.
Many said, at the time, he was too conservative to win a general election. However, his mass popularity caused many democrats to defect. They were called āBlue Dog Democrats.ā One reason Bush Sr. won in 92ā was that he was able to keep those democrats. Later we all saw that Bush Sr. was in fact NOT a real conservative, but thatās another story.
Reaganās enormous popularity cut across party lines and caused him to be one of the most popular Presidents in the history of our country, even though Pitbull and his entire family hated him-
Iām certainly not saying that Reaganās legacy has not been protected by conservatives, but it has also been very accurately represented. You only need to study a little political history (please donāt listen to your college Profs.) on your own to fully realize that not only was Reagan very conservative, incredibly popular, but also one of the best modern day Presidents that America has had. In fact, so popular that there was talk of putting his likeness on Mount Rushmore. They also wanted to put his likeness on certain coinage, which will eventually come to pass as soon as we sweep the filth from the White House.[/quote]
Reagan was not a āreal conservativeā either, if we use a pre-Reagan measure for what a political conservative was, and not the post-Regan social-conservative-redefinition.
I have studied this, a little. Iāve also been alive just long enough to watch his magical transformation from typical partisan president (those on his side tended to like him, the other half really didnāt) to Savior of America and Destroyer of Soviets.
Iāll grant that Reagan was āconservativeā, if, like I mentioned above, we using the post-Reagan definition of conservative retroactively: Berry Goldwater would not have seen him as a real conservative, and the amount of money he spent on moral crusades against evils like marijuana attest to this. He also had not respect for the rule of law or the constitution: see IranContra.
He did lay a fine groundwork for the Goldwater-esque conservative movement to be hijacked, and for Neo-Conservative philosophy to become the conventional or mainstream brand of American conservatism.[/quote]
LOL, you are so far off the mark. You have somehow mixed the current libertarian movement with the conservative movement. There is a growing trend to think that ārealā conservatives are libertarians at heart. There is no truth to that, none. But you want to believe it, I know. Do you honestly think Barry Goldwater was against stricter pot laws in 1964? Do you realize what he wanted to do to the radicals who marched in the late 60ās? LOL, please stop it, you will soon achieve pitbull status. Reagan was a Goldwater conservative. I lived through it, remember it well and know what has happened since. But like all Internet debates there comes a time when itās just not worth it, you will think what you want and quite frankly why should I care? Iām only stringing Pit along because he amuses me.
Youāre just flat out wrong and need to read more about Goldwater and his plans and policies. There is probably hope for you if you just dig a little regarding Godlwater youāll see the truth. Pit on the other hand is so filled with hate because of what he accuses Reagan of doing to his family that it borders on some sort of psychosis. Granted that isnāt usually a funny topic, and I know I shouldnāt egging him on, but I just canāt help it. I said it a long time ago, the Internet brings out the worst in me. :)[/quote]
Your use of the word āConservativeā is interesting, and specific. Maybe you should flush out what you mean for us.
You are right, in a strict technical sense, conservative means to remain the same, to resist change, to maintain the status quo, to maintain, preserve and enhance existing institutions at the expense/opposition of change.
So you could technically have communist conservatives, if they grew up in an authoritarian communist society and their goal was the preservation of that status quo and those institutions. Right?
But in modern American parlance āConservativeā has for at least the last century, been associated with low-taxes, federalism, and small government. It has continued to be associated with those ideas, despite politicians like Reagan, who you consider conservative, expanding the size and scope of the federal government, and adopting draconian policies about drugs and other social issues.
I think a more accurate way to think about it is with the two-axis/scale system, where one axis/variable is economic, with a true free-market (zero regulation) on one side and communism/communalism on the other. The other axis represents the role of government is societal and moral issues, on the one extreme you have Anarchy on the other total authoritarianism.
The problem with this scale is that modern ā-ismsā are rarely philosophically sound. I think āConservativesā should find themselves in the āfree-market/anarchyā quadrant (not necessarily at the extreme). And much of their lip service is inline with this. But the fact is that our āConservativeā politicians, at least as long as Iāve been around, at the national level have all be authoritarian leaning hypocrites who claim to support free-markets, while playing the ācorporate welfareā/subsidies/military industrial economy game.
If Reagan was a conservative, then I need your definition conservative, because it seems like you (and many on your team) want it to be a liquid, ill-defined word, that we all recognize when we see, but isnāt beholden to a consistent political philosophy: what Iād call the social conservatives. Folks who want the gubbermint out of their lives, expect when it comes to enforcing their personal code of ethics and morals on the greater population (a.k.a. social policy), drug-policy, medicare, social-security, law-enforcement and the military. Other than that, they want they government small and out of their lives, they promise.[/quote]
Thank you for your response to my post.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Regan did not have a good understanding of the Private sector , He was just anti union ,[/quote]
That was one of his strong suits. I know, I know, he hurt your family and Aunt Beth still hates him. I get, I get it.
Ha ha, and he created almost 20 million private sector jobs. You see, you can wine about what happened to your family, and I donāt blame you. But you canāt deny the facts. Well you can, but Iāll just keep reminding you. And after 40 or 50 posts weāll accomplish nothing. But, Iāll keep posting whenever I have the time. Reminding you of the facts.
I know you hate Ronald Reagan, I get it, I get it. Just keep in mind your hate is misguided and based on nothing but emotion.
[/quote]
Do you believe Reagan did anything wrong ? or do you believe Jesus elected him to be
President
I contend your hate of Unions is misguided , they created a strong middle class.
My hate is not based on emotion , my emotion is based on hate . I think they should have given Hinckley a bigger gun that is semi auto with more bullets
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just do the math
[/quote]
Please correct me if my math sucks as much as your memory Unemployment is at 10% and that number is 8.4 mil. so there must be 84 million jobs in America and Reagan created 25% of them , That is fucking amazing.
You know Zeb if Obamaās recession is in fact worst then the one Reagan inherited then if it recovers we will be able to say Obama created 40,000,000 jobs
Does anyone know how many jobs Roosevelt created ? it has to be billions
[/quote]
Iāve repeatedly said that the jobs were created from the point Carter left office to the time Reagan hit his 7th year as President. Sure some of those were lost during Carter and regained during Reagan. thatās what you call going from a President who is clueless to one who has a good understanding of the private sector
[/quote]
Carter was not clueless the worst thing he did was take the Shaw out of power , the best thing he did was approach the oil shortage , which Reagan undid pronto. Just think how far we would have been down the road to energy independence .
Regan did not have a good understanding of the Private sector , He was just anti union ,
Had Reagan had a good understanding of the private sector he would not have thrown the baby out with the bath water, Meaning he would have kept the Steel industry intact and forced it to compete . So he threw away all the jobs the tax revenue that the employees and the companies paid. And he put all the towns on welfare . That is true Business Savy :)[/quote]
I want to know what you mean by āforcing the steel industry to competeā. Be very specific.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Do you believe Reagan did anything wrong ?
[/quote]
Of course he did things wrong, every President does. But our little debate is about you erroneously stating that he was a bad President - how foolish of you to make such a claim. How many posts have you wasted not being able to back it up?
They helped bankrupt America as well with their unrealistic demands.
[quote]My hate is not based on emotion , my emotion is based on hate .
I think they should have given Hinckley a bigger gun that is semi auto with more bullets
[/quote]
That last comment places you on the emotionally sick list. Regardless of any political differences that I might have with any politician I would never even think such thoughts. But then again, unlike you, Iām not filled with irrational hate. Maybe you should talk this out with a professional.
ZEB
He was the worst President , no other President is guilty of decimating an entire Industry ,Losing a major tax revenue and putting hundreds of thousands of people on welfare . If it were not incompetence it would be HIGH TREASON,
We are not having a conversation , I have quit trying . For us to have a conversation , you would have to answer questions not just preach your PRO REAGAN RHETORIC. I know I am now preaching ANTI REAGAN RHETORIC.
As far as me being sick by your diagnosys does not phase me , more rhetoric
The so called Conservatives or as I call them the CIRCLE JERK SOCIETY favorite debate mechanism is to act like their adversary is some how beneath them . I actually think this is a trend that comes down from Limpdick , Beck and the like . I call it HUBRIS . If I have that definition wrong please let me know
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB
He was the worst President , no other President is guilty of decimating an entire Industry ,Losing a major tax revenue and putting hundreds of thousands of people on welfare . If it were not incompetence it would be HIGH TREASON,
[/quote]
He did not do that, the other presidents did that, from FDR onwards.
He just let it die.
It was a mercy killing.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ā¦Losing a major tax revenueā¦
[/quote]
Lol, youāre ignoring that tax revenues doubled under his administration. Now, if youāll also please answer my earlier question about how he could āforce the steel industry to compete.ā
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB
He was the worst President , no other President is guilty of decimating an entire Industry[/quote]
I donāt care what your Aunt Kate told you Pitsky, Reagan didnāt do that. We moved from an industrialized economy to an information economy. There were casualties in that economic shift.
No you have not quit trying. This very post demonstrates that you are still spouting your anit-Reagan hate propaganda.
Several posts back I gave you a multitude of reasons why Reagan was not only a good President, but perhaps the best modern day President. To date you have not been able to refute even one of those reasons. But you have been sounding off emotionally since then. This shows everyone who has been reading the thread that you are more or less full of it regarding Ronald Reagan (did I tell you he was the greatest modern day President?). As a child/young adult you had your mind twisted. Family members told you he was no good and that was that. Unions are great, welfare is just money well spent. Homosexuals should be married. Health care is a (boo hoo) God given right (hey if health care is a God given right, tell me is having a free place to live one also? Seems itās just as important)
You had no chance, as a kid you heard some crazy crap and unfortunately it went down without even a swallow - - I get it, I get it.
You are the one who made the Hinckly remark, not me. That was loathsome, and you actually surprised me with that as I thought youād be above it. This just confirms your irrational hate for the greatest mondern day President- Ronald Wilson Reagan!
You do have it wrong- The most arrogant man on the planet is Barack Obama, and the general public is starting to find that out. The voter remorse is in full swing right now. I wish I had a buck for everyone of my middle of the road friends who said āyou were right man, this guy is bad for the country.ā His poll numbers are at a new all time low.
As for Beck, they called him crazy when he said there would be ādeath panels,ā but low and behold, what do we have now? An agency being created (in liu of NHC) to determine whether or not a senior should continue to recieve a certain drugs (in order to save his life). Uh huh - -keep trusting big brother Pit, theyād never lie to you, hand them more power, go ahead, theyāll take good care of you.
Fortunately, Obama is doing a great deal of good - - for the republican party! LOL- Wait till you see the outcome of the November elections. Iāll call it right now. The House and Senate will go to the republicans. Obama, Pelosi and Reid scared the crap out of mainstream America.
Now go do some actual research on Ronald Reagan. If you were not so clouded with so much hate even you would see that Reagan was the greatest modern day President.
Remember he won 49 of 50 states in his reelection - in Obamaās world weād have to say 49 of 57 sates. Anyway, they reelected him by such a wide margin because they appreciated the great job he did his first term. If he could have run for a 3rd term he would have won again.
Iām a student of Presidential history. I also give credit to democrats of the past as well. But in addition to this I was there buddy, I saw it, I lived it, he was the greatest!
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ā¦Losing a major tax revenueā¦
[/quote]
Lol, youāre ignoring that tax revenues doubled under his administration. Now, if youāll also please answer my earlier question about how he could āforce the steel industry to compete.ā[/quote]
Try not to overload Pit with facts, he really doesnāt like that. It gets in the way of his raw hatred for (drum roll please) THE GREATEST MODERN DAY PRESIDENT - RONALD WILSON REAGAN.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
He was the worst President , no other President is guilty of decimating an entire Industry ,Losing a major tax revenue and putting hundreds of thousands of people on welfare . [/quote]
Obama is working on this one. The offshore moritorium is decimating the Gulf Coast. Peopleās jobs are being sent overseas. Oil companies are sending their drilling rigs to Egypt, Brazil, and many other places. Why is Obama doing this I have no clue. The moritorium is not only hurting Oil Companies, it is hurting Travel Companies, restaurants, hotels, hospitality companies, and one I find very amuzing strip clubs. This moritorium is going to hurt us worse than the steel industry ever did.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where are these 20,000,000 jobs , that is approx. 50,000 a state .You avoid answering the question and insinuate any one that disagrees with you is out of touch or ignoring logic . I contend it is your defense so you do not have to answer the question[/quote]
Here you go, catch up on your history:
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/prosper.htm
"For starters, letās remember what things were like when Reagan took over. In 1980, inflation was running at 13.5 percent, the prime lending rate stood at 21.5 percent, unemployment and poverty were rising, real income and productivit were falling, and real economic growth had ceased.
Enter Reagan, who implemented deep, across-the-board tax cuts, curbed Washingtonās regulatory bureaucracy, and instituted sound monetary policies tha restrained inflation. The results: the largest peacetime economic boom in U.S. history and nearly 20 million net new jobs."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_n97/ai_16320048/
āIn 1984, the economy grew by 6.8% in real terms, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the next 7 years, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989. Even with the Reagan tax cuts, total federal revenues doubled from 1980 to 1990, growing from $517.1 billion to $1,031 billion, or just over $1 trillion. In Reaganās last budget year, fiscal 1989, the widely overballyhooed federal deficit had declined to $152.5 billion, about the same as a percent of GDP as in 1980, 2.9% compared to 2.8%.ā
[/quote]
The middle class shrunk upwards , do you believe that shit , that is why I donāt read your links let me look at the second link. The middle class has disappeared and it hasnāt gone up.
You want me to believe an article titled rewriting the Reagan years , do you think everybody believes this shit.
Lets look at the 3rd OK that is the second article that said 20,000,000 jobs but no proof , do you expect me just to believe that 20,000. 000 jobs were created with out you saying where they were
Ok I read your articles tell me how you can justify the poverty Reagan created in the NOW RUST BELT. Look at that poverty and show me an equivalent of good that counters Reagans BAD[/quote]
The middle class is being split between the upper and lower classes. Those previous members with certain levels of educations in practical areas have been moving into the lower levels of the Upper Class. Those who think a high school diploma or a BA in English counts as an education are going to be part of the lower classes. In the not too far future only certain skilled tradesmen will remain in the middle class.
Theres no logic in paying a barely educated person 50k a year, none.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
The middle class is being split between the upper and lower classes. Those previous members with certain levels of educations in practical areas have been moving into the lower levels of the Upper Class. Those who think a high school diploma or a BA in English counts as an education are going to be part of the lower classes. In the not too far future only certain skilled tradesmen will remain in the middle class.
Theres no logic in paying a barely educated person 50k a year, none.[/quote]
But unions believe these that are uneducated should be paid 160k and given a 5% raise annually for no reason. We are all entitled to have more money. The unions need to continue to increase salaries becuase they need their 7% dues to continue. They do not care about the common man they only care about the dues. The union bosses are turning into elitists just like DC.