Club Democrat

[D_Juan Tootree]

I never claimed Ford to be a fabulous president or strong leader, but more important then unemployment was the massive inflation we dealt with under the Carter years. Even though unemployment remained high under Carter, and promptly stabalized during the Reagan years. Let's see if umemployment is better by 2012 under Obama.;-)

I knew that unemployment at it's peak was around 25-30%. My bad if I did not look up the exact figures before posting. Again, just jumping on me to try and discredit me instead of offering any solid opposing view points as to why it's such a great idea to have one political party that is known to spend way out of its means in total control of the country and has representatives (such as Obama and Pelosi) publically state they do not care about the deficit. How is this a good thing for the country?

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

Quoted for emphasis.

FYI - unemployment peaked in 1975 under Ford, and again in 1982 under Reagan. Hard to blame the 1974-5 numbers on Carter.

Image:Us unemployment rates 1950 2005.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Thanks for the addition stats, it strengthens my case. And FYI- it's hard to blame the unemployment peak in 1982 on Reagan when he had only been in office for 2 years. He had to take some time to correct the blunders of the Carter and Nixon administration.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I never claimed Ford to be a fabulous president or strong leader, but more important then unemployment was the massive inflation we dealt with under the Carter years. Even though unemployment remained high under Carter, and promptly stabalized during the Reagan years. Let's see if umemployment is better by 2012 under Obama.;-)

Did you even look at the links? Unemployment was hardly "stable" under Reagan. It peaked in 1982 and declined through the 1980s, only to rise again under GHWB. And it didn't "remain high" under Carter - it was actually lower under Carter than in any year under Ford. It actually DROPPED in 1976-77-78.

(For those of you following at home, you will note that unemployment fell steadily throughout the Kennedy/Johnson and Clinton administrations. Hmmm. )

I knew that unemployment at it's peak was around 25-30%.

What you are doing is attempting to mislead the unwary. You mention 12-30% in conjunction with the names Hoover, FDR, and Carter, but unemployment never came close to 30% under any of these presidents, and never even hit 12% under Carter.

Again, just jumping on me to try and discredit me instead of offering any solid opposing view points

You haven't offered a solid point yet. You started this thread; it's up to you to make your point, not pass the buck to others.

Here's a site-appropriate analogy for you...

A man starts a thread bragging about his 17" penis. He posts a few paragraphs extolling its virtues and relates anecdotes from previous partners.

Readers are skeptical, so he posts more anecdotes saying that his penis can wake the dead, part the Red Sea, and comfort colicky babies. And he backs that up with an obviously photoshopped pic.

And then, when the fake pic is exposed and he is justifiably ridiculed, his response to his critics is that in order to disprove his claim, they need to prove that they have a 17" penis themselves.

See the flaw in his logic?

 

[rob_just_rob]

Thanks for the addition stats, it strengthens my case. And FYI- it's hard to blame the unemployment peak in 1982 on Reagan when he had only been in office for 2 years. He had to take some time to correct the blunders of the Carter and Nixon administration.

If we can blame the rise in unemployment in 1982 on Carter, then we can just as easily blame the rise in unemployment in 1991-2 on Reagan.

Try again.

 

[tripod]

Sock puppet is also known by it's yiddish term... a schill.

I took it further with first graders usually performing a version of Three Billy Goat's Gruff with sock puppets. Guess what is under the bridge...

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

You are getting into semantics. Whatever recession we had in the early 90's was minimal at worst. Point is that Reagan ushered in an era of economic prosperity, and Americans today are wealthier then they ever have been before. We are far more prosperous now then we were in the 70's. (Americans making over 100,000 in 1996 - 9%, Americans making over 100,000 now - 26%, and inflation has remained reletively steady)

Stop bickering with me and give me a reason why it's a good idea for Reid and Pelosi to be in charge with no checks and balances. Give me a reason why it's such a bad thing to keep taxes low and government limited, key word: limited. Why is it a bad thing to spend within our means? Please, explain why 4 more years of reckless disregard for our currency is a good thing?

waiting...

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

I have offered a solid point. You have not offered a solid point, you have just been attacking me.

Explain how it is a good thing for Pelosi and Reid to be control with no checks and balances? Why is it such a bad idea to keep taxes low and gov't limited, key word: limited? How is it a good idea for the stability of our currency and our economy to keep spending money like we have been? Please explain that. THAT"S my point. You have to give the free market a chance to grow by keeping the gov't out of the way.

 

[vince]

Looks like we get about one week of relative peace between moronic trolls...

I have to laugh when I hear people talk about Ronald Reagan 'getting govt spending under control' blah blah blah... RR is the patron saint of deficit spending. The annual deficit tripled under Reagan. He was the original liar when it comes to cutting taxes and increasing spending. Bush the First called it Voo-Doo Economics, and he was right. He had to raise taxes and so did Clinton.

Repeated deficits equal massive government total debt. What percentage of the Federal budget goes to service the debt? Nine percent.

That's about 250 billion dollars per year in interest payments to the creditors of the U.S.A.

Since the end of the Vietnam War, Right-wing governments if increased spending and deficits to a greater degree than any Democrat.

You are pull your "facts and "solid points" out of your ass.

 

[rob_just_rob]

You are getting into semantics. Whatever recession we had in the early 90's was minimal at worst.

You are the one who brought up unemployment. So now it's just "semantics"?

We are far more prosperous now then we were in the 70's. (Americans making over 100,000 in 1996 - 9%, Americans making over 100,000 now - 26%, and inflation has remained reletively steady)

Now, THIS is what I am talking about. You make a statement about the 1970s, and then you back it up with numbers from 1996 and the present day. Unsourced numbers, I might add.

Stop bickering with me and give me a reason why it's a good idea for Reid and Pelosi to be in charge with no checks and balances. Give me a reason why it's such a bad thing to keep taxes low and government limited, key word: limited. Why is it a bad thing to spend within our means? Please, explain why 4 more years of reckless disregard for our currency is a good thing?

waiting...

Why? Why not? Oh, right, you haven't made an argument "why not", so now you'd like to see if you could do better arguing from a different perspective?

You haven't made any points, so why is it my turn to make some? Again, you started this thread and you made some bold assertions - I suggest you do a better job of defending them. And if you'd like to refute other people's points, I further suggest that you wait for someone to start a thread in which they take a position on a particular issue.

The reason I am posting in this thread is not to argue a particular point of view, but only to point out that you:

- have not made an argument, nor provided any evidence for your assertions (right from post 1 and all the way through this thread)
- apparently have no understanding of logic or causation
- fabricate "facts" to support your particular dogma
- read selectively
- bring up economic issues such as employment, and when the numbers don't support your p.o.v., you then discount them
- and, in short, you apparently don't know how to debate.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I have offered a solid point. You have not offered a solid point, you have just been attacking me.

Go back and read my analogy in post 43.

edit: OK, here's my point.

Gigantikok is an awful debater. There are no references or logical flow in his arguments. He cites sources inconsistently, at times using irrelevant sources or fabricating them entirely. He cherrypicks "facts" that support his point of view. He confuses rhetoric for fact, and emotion for logic, and when confronted, his only response is to accuse his critics of doing the same thing.

Discuss.

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

ya, fuck the constitution, and checks and balances and stuff like that.

Yay for bailouts, nationalization, and reckless spending, because no matter what you say about "right wing governments", we've never before had a generation of politicians completely violating and disregarding what the constitution says... and that's only since this generation of Democrat politicians took control. So deflect deflect deflect somemore vince and rob, but you are ignoring the issues we are increasingly facing because of disregard for the constitution and government involvement in the market (telling lenders who to lend to, crippling businesses with unions that demand too much money for the business to be able to compete with other businesses that aren't being bullied by unions, staking stake in companies) You are ignoring the problems at hand, and continuing to mindlessly vote Democrat.

350 billion of the 700 billion for the bailout has been spent, and there have been no oversight commitees to see where the money has gone or what has been done. Toxic assets have not been bought up, money has literally just been thrown at banks without any requirments or oversight. That is THIS generation of Democrats in charge. You somehow argue that this is good leadership?

Oh puhleeze.

And that was my whole point to begin with. Why continue to vote Democrat, if the Democrat party in charge has shown no leadership abilities, no good ideas, and continue to horribly mismanage everything?

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

but you guys are part of Club Democrat, so instead, work extra hard to make me look stupid, because how could I be right if I am so beneath either of you? *sarcasm sarcasm*

Again, you spent the last few posts of yours rob, just talking shit and not answers any of the questions I have asked. Your argument style is to be completely preoccupied with discrediting me, so that you dont have to argue the real issues at hand.

Im done with this, it's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

I meant "taking stake in companies", in post #51, cuz any minute now Rob will try to use typos to discredit me aswell, im sure.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I meant "taking stake in companies", in post #51, cuz any minute now Rob will try to use typos to discredit me aswell, im sure.

No worries, we all make typos from time to time.

I know my last comments came across as harsh, maybe too harsh. But really, how can you expect people to take you seriously when your arguments are so sloppy and unfounded?

 

[B_starinvestor]

I have to laugh when I hear people talk about Ronald Reagan 'getting govt spending under control' blah blah blah... RR is the patron saint of deficit spending. The annual deficit tripled under Reagan. He was the original liar when it comes to cutting taxes and increasing spending. Bush the First called it Voo-Doo Economics, and he was right. He had to raise taxes and so did Clinton.

Reagan had to 'Bail Out' Social Security to the tune of $180 billion. When you are finished laughing, can you explain to us how a collapsing Social Security system was Reagan's problem?

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

My argument style may be sloppy, and that is obviously something I would have to work on, but my actual ARGUMENT is not at all unfounded. Refer above. And please, if you are going to post, then post in response to what I am asking you to respond to, not continual posts about how sloppy and crazy and stupid I am?

So, i repeat, you somehow argue that this is good leadership?

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

Reagan had to 'Bail Out' Social Security to the tune of $180 billion. When you are finished laughing, can you explain to us how a collapsing Social Security system was Reagan's problem?

Ya ya, i know, Reagan wasn't perfect. I haven't really been going on and on about Reagan, but he was the closest thing in a modern president to a conservative. Point is, he kept taxes low and government limited. There is a difference between the gov't bailing out a gov't program, and the gov't bailing out the private sector. The latter is unconstitutional.

 

[sparky11point5]

I'd like to see the source for the 9% to 26% jump in "Americans" who earn more than 100K annually. In particular, you need to clarify --

-- whether this number is inflation adjusted or not
-- if you actually mean "households" since the number of women working has dramatically increased household income (maybe not quality of life, but income nonetheless)
-- whether this is earned income or passive income from capital gains, dividends, etc

Then we can talk prosperity or not. I am too lazy to google it, but I have seen other studies that show that real (inflation adjusted) wages has been flat since the 1970s. If you want an explanation for this election cycle -- that might be it.

 

[D_Juan Tootree]

ill find the source and post it soon.

 

[HyperHulk]

However, he's kept everyone in this country safe for the last 8 years, so much so, that most people don't realize just how dangerous it is around the world.

Yes, Bush has kept everyone safe in the past 8 years. Well except that one pesky year, 2001 (which is well within those 8 years) when we were not kept safe. He's been nothing short of a foreign policy genius hailed the world over.