Obama beating Reagan!

[MongGrel]

But tax breaks for everybody did.

No it didn't.

That was like throwing a dog a bone and a bit insulting.

 

[fskimospy]

He just got lucky I guess. Obama economic policies would have been much better no doubt. Please tell exactly how you think Reagan's economic policies failed.

Reagan benefitted from massively looser money from the fed.

He didn't get lucky, it just didn't have much to do with his policies. The guy was incompetent.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Reagan benefitted from massively looser money from the fed.

He didn't get lucky, it just didn't have much to do with his policies. The guy was incompetent.

Specifically, please elaborate on his incompetent economic policies.

 

[MongGrel]

I have several times now.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I have several times now.

You've provided nothing to support your opinion. Now would be a good time to do that.

 

[fskimospy]

Specifically, please elaborate on his incompetent economic policies.

Ahh, so now you're asking people to disprove his competence. Nice try.

Reagan benefitted from massive loosening of monetary policy. The idea that people would think he was a driver of economic growth is ..... well... Motivated reasoning.

 

[MongGrel]

You've provided nothing to support your opinion. Now would be a good time to do that.

There is no need to support it.

Is pretty well documented in history all ready.

If you take the time to look at it, instead of posting things in the contrast.

 

[Matt1970]

There is no need to support it.

Is pretty well documented in history all ready.

If you take the time to look at it, instead of posting things in the contrast.

If it is so well documented, it should be pretty easy to link to.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ahh, so now you're asking people to disprove his competence. Nice try.

Reagan benefitted from massive loosening of monetary policy. The idea that people would think he was a driver of economic growth is ..... well... Motivated reasoning.

Perhaps you could link a couple economic studies that objectively evaluate this period. I find your lack of specifics to be...well...possibly motivated reasoning.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is no need to support it.

Is pretty well documented in history all ready.

If you take the time to look at it, instead of posting things in the contrast.

So well documented that you can't easily find a few credible studies to support you opinions?

 

[MongGrel]

I don't need to and won't bother.

I was coming out of the Marines at the time, and starting my Toolmaker Apprenticeship at the time and working a second job.

I doubt you were there.

Studies are not required, at least in my mind, as I was living it at the time.

 

[dank69]

Shit, don't ask.

The world needs to know.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't need to and won't bother.

I was coming out of the Marines at the time, and starting my Toolmaker Apprenticeship at the time and working a second job.

I doubt you were there.

Studies are not required, at least in my mind, as I was living it at the time.

Lol...I was there living through that horrible era as well and are likely older than you. "Studies are not required"...pretty much sums you up it seems and you have zero credibility, at least in my mind.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't need to and won't bother.

I was coming out of the Marines at the time, and starting my Toolmaker Apprenticeship at the time and working a second job.

I doubt you were there.

Studies are not required, at least in my mind, as I was living it at the time.

So in other words you can't.

 

[xaeniac]

Let's just say he is not doing better in Russian relations.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm not bothering more or less.

I doubt you're older but I give a shit anyways.

 

[boomerang]

So you think Benghazi is somehow related to ISIL?

Here, this will keep you busy for quite a while. Although you probably won't read it, I'm sure you'll make some flippant comments.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/09/01/the-benghazi-brief-2/

The good news from your perspective is that nothing will come out of the Benghazi investigation for reasons that will become obvious once the article is read. Both political parties have blood on their hands. To condemn one is to condemn the other. The Obama administration has repeated the same mistakes that prior administrations have made. They all thought they were doing something good. Did the U.S. assist in arming ISIL? Yes. Directly or purposefully, of course not.

 

[dank69]

Here, this will keep you busy for quite a while. Although you probably won't read it, I'm sure you'll make some flippant comments.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/09/01/the-benghazi-brief-2/

The good news from your perspective is that nothing will come out of the Benghazi investigation for reasons that will become obvious once the article is read. Both political parties have blood on their hands. To condemn one is to condemn the other. The Obama administration has repeated the same mistakes that prior administrations have made. They all thought they were doing something good. Did the U.S. assist in arming ISIL? Yes. Directly or purposefully, of course not.

Well I skimmed that article but still don't see anything claiming that Obama armed ISIL (or ISIS) in Benghazi. Can you quote that part for me?

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps you could link a couple economic studies that objectively evaluate this period. I find your lack of specifics to be...well...possibly motivated reasoning.

This is very odd, as I thought the effects of monetary policy were common knowledge. Hell, the recession in 1981 is often called the "Volcker Recession" specifically because it's accepted that huge increases in the federal funds rate caused the recession. After this period (and in the remainder of Reagan's presidency) the federal funds rate was cut in half, dropping literally about 1,000 basis points. Up went growth.

See here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred...=Monthly&fam=avg&vintage_date=&revision_date=

Remember, GDP growth rate changes will lag interest rate changes slightly.

EDIT: Stupid FRED won't save my changes. You're going to want to change GDP to year-on-year growth rate, and then change the years to look at the 1980's.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is very odd, as I thought the effects of monetary policy were common knowledge. Hell, the recession in 1981 is often called the "Volcker Recession" specifically because it's accepted that huge increases in the federal funds rate caused the recession. After this period (and in the remainder of Reagan's presidency) the federal funds rate was cut in half, dropping literally about 1,000 basis points. Up went growth.

See here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred...=Monthly&fam=avg&vintage_date=&revision_date=

Remember, GDP growth rate changes will lag interest rate changes slightly.

EDIT: Stupid FRED won't save my changes. You're going to want to change GDP to year-on-year growth rate, and then change the years to look at the 1980's.

...and the rest of the story? Double-digit inflation tamed, excellent GDP growth, low unemployment. Seems to me that you want to blame him (instead of Carter) for bad monetary policy Reagan inherited at the beginning of his first term and then give him zero credit for changes made in monetary policy during the middle of his first term that were highly successful.

 

[justoh]

Specifically, please elaborate on his incompetent economic policies.

Policies can't be incompetent. Sheesh. You guys...

 

[fskimospy]

...and the rest of the story? Double-digit inflation tamed, excellent GDP growth, low unemployment. Seems to me that you want to blame him (instead of Carter) for bad monetary policy Reagan inherited at the beginning of his first term and then give him zero credit for changes made in monetary policy during the middle of his first term that were highly successful.

Reagan didn't make the changes in monetary policy, the Fed did. He didn't even initially appoint the guy who did make those policy changes. (although he did reappoint him in 1983 after the funds rate had already been massively cut.)

I didn't try to blame him for anything, I simply stated that he was the beneficiary of extremely accommodating monetary policy during the period of economic growth in his administration. That's shown perfectly clearly in the data I cited.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Reagan bought into Laffer's nonsense in 1981, but to his credit he saw that Laffer was wrong and agreed to a series of small tax hikes and a large increase in payroll taxes in 1982 to help address the increasing budget deficits. However, his 1981 tax cut and 1982 payroll tax increase did contribute to wealth inequity. He definitely made some mistakes, but it's hard to ignore his successes as well.

 

[dank69]

Reagan bought into Laffer's nonsense in 1981, but to his credit he saw that Laffer was wrong and agreed to a series of small tax hikes and a large increase in payroll taxes in 1982 to help address the increasing budget deficits. However, his 1981 tax cut and 1982 payroll tax increase did contribute to wealth inequity. He definitely made some mistakes, but it's hard to ignore his successes as well.

What he did was fuck you and me over. He shifted the tax burden off of the super wealthy and on to you and me.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What he did was fuck you and me over. He shifted the tax burden off of the super wealthy and on to you and me.

We've already had this conversation I believe.