Re: libsdouchebag is STILL a moron

On Mar 2, 1:42 am, Ether <et...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:36 pm, libsdouchebag wrote:





On Mar 1, 10:24 am, "DGDevin" <dgde...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

libsnightm...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
This is a big difference between Reagan and Obama. Obama used fear to
pass a dishonest and criminal stimulus plan while Reagan lowered taxes
and spending.

Obama is Jimmy Carter on crack.

Ummmm, you might want to do a bit more research on that--well, let's pretend
you want to know what actually happened. Reagan's economic policies
(including the tax cuts at the beginning of his first term) came at the same
time as modest (though sustained) economic growth. Rates of productivity
and employment increased--though not as much as some folks might think--and
inflation was kept way down. But at the same time the federal deficit
exploded, as a percentage of GDP it more than doubled in Regan's first term
to 6% of GDP. A payroll tax increase in 1983 (yes, increase) raised tax
revenues and helped to curb deficit growth, but Reagan still had the
biggest peacetime deficit in history. Since Reagan left Bush 41 with a
federal deficit double that which he had inherited from Carter, Bush's
attempt to pay down that debt by raising taxes cost him re-election.
Actually some folks think the huge Reagan deficit was a deliberate strategy,
that it tied the hands of the Dems when they gained seats in Congress
because there was no money left to spend on social programs. So while it's
fair to say the economy did well in many respects during Reagan's time in
office, it's silly to pretend that his tax and spending policies didn't
result in a huge increase in the federal deficit. If you're against the
Obama deficit then perhaps you need to explain why the Reagan, Bush 41 and
Bush 43 deficits don't seem to appear on your radar, because your taxes are
still going to pay down those debts and will be for a long time.

Uh, the Obama deficit is the biggest since WW2 and is 12.3 percent of
the US GDP.

Maybe *that's* why.

The bigger question is why Obama's isn't on *your* radar screen... lib.

The more pertinent question is -- Why is libsdouchebag such a total
fucking idiot?

He doesn't seem to understand that we're in the worst economic
recession/depression since the early 1930s. That recession is due
largely to George W. Bush's failed economic policies and especially
the lack of government regulation of the finance and banking
industries. Even the clueless Bush realized we were in deep ***
before he left office, because HE introduced the first massive bank
bailout bill. It's a ton of money, and more will be required, but the
alternative is total econonic meltdown.

Obama is merely reacting to a horrendous problem that existed before
he took office.

Nobody wants to spend a ton of money on this crisis, but that ship
sailed years ago. Our only choice is to spend money propping up our
financial institutions--and our society as a whole--in hopes that it
will speed recovery. The Republicans are the party of unbridled, crack-
induced spending (and trying to hide it), while Obama is the one
trying to get us back to fiscal responsiblity. Rush Limbaugh is the
one with the drug addiction.

All clear, idiot? You're no smarter than you were back when you were
called "Crap Dover".

   --E- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody wants to listen to a president make the "excuse" of inheriting
a problem. If they are a true leader they have to own the problem
without lame excuses. The only correct thing Obama has done so far is
not pull out of Iraq too soon, and begin escalation of the forces in
Afghanistan. On the economy and taxes he's doing just the opposite of
what would really help.

.

Quantcast