Ronald Reagan cut taxes and raised defense spending. What happened to the national debt was not "pure conjecture." It was inevitable.

 

DL, you are beating a dead horse, actually you are beating a horse that never lived.

First problem with your conclusion, the term "Social Democracy" has no solid foundation, taken loosely, the US is a Social Democracy. Next, the economic policies of presidents have very little bearing on the performance of the countries economy. It is well established that the only thing that a president's economic policies influence is how the Congress implements them. When the Congress and the President are in sync, his policies generally are implemented, when they are not in sync, virtually nothing happens.

Having a political majority in Congress, matching the political party of the administration, does not guarantee a unified effort.

 

We've also been enjoying the 4th longest bull market in US history. My IRA would like a few more years of this.....

 

You may criticize Obama all you want as long as you say nothing about his ears.

 

Incredible. You actually quoted a "fact" that shows we "only" spend 28% of our GDP on government. It's actually closer to 40%, but whatever. Almost 1\3 of our total production goes to government. Think about that.

And what the hell, we had a near perfect rating all those years, and so what, the rating slipped a little under Obama. He means well. He's a nice guy. He doesn't mean to fuck over Americans with his policies and practices. He didn't mean for 3 Million Americans to be taken out of the labor force permanently, driven into debt, and left to live on welfare and disability. He killed them with his kindness. Cut him some slack.

You never cut Bush any slack. I recall when Obama made his famous "it's unpatriotic for a president to let the debt grow to $4 TRILLION" you were crowing about hope and change.

I haven't heard you crowing so much about
$18 TRILLION
and counting

 

Holy shit. Now it's Reagan's fault. So, the deficit isn't Bush's fault either then; if that's true how come you rant about him starting two wars he couldn't win and couldn't pay for?
Come on Dog. You can do better. Quit making excuses for Obama. Bar none the worst President we've ever had.

 

Republicans give Reagan credit for the good economic numbers of his administration. (As I have pointed out in the past, those numbers were not so good. More jobs were created per year under Jimmy Carter.)

When I ask Republicans about the deficit they say, "What deficit? Oh, that deficit. Reagan did not cause that deficit. That deficit was the fault of the Democrat Congress."

The Reagan deficit was caused by cutting taxes while raising defense spending. That is what Reagan said to do. That is what Congress did. It was Reagan's idea, his lunatic idea. Everyone in Congress was foolish enough to cut taxes while raising defense spending, like Reagan told them to do, shares responsibility for that deficit.

 

The advent of the internet and internet culture prevents people from working or at least doing a good job which is why the economy is bad and all the jobs are sourced out to China and stuff.

 

The Wall Street Journal, "What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks," November 6, 2012

Historical Trends: Despite the fact that Wall Street tends to prefer Republican candidates, the stock market historically has performed better under Democratic presidents.

Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year.

To be sure, the Dow is up more than 7% this year, on pace for a fourth straight year of gains. Whether that trend can continue for another four years may be difficult no matter who gets elected.

For now, though, economic growth appears to be improving, the labor market is starting to gain some steam and the housing recovery has been slowly been gaining traction all year.

Likely outcome: It’s hard to ignore with history; win for stocks.
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

 

Companies have ways to tell if their employees are using the internet for non work related reasons.

 

The growing deficit is the fault of two Republican presidents who cut taxes while raising defense spending. If you can guess the names of those two Republican presidents, you get a gold star next to your name.

 

Is President Obama worse than Calvin Coolidge, who did nothing to prevent the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression?

Is President Obama worse than Herbert Hoover, who did nothing of an effective nature to fix the Great Depression?

Is President Obama worse than Richard Nixon, who needlessly prolonged the War in Vietnam?

Is President Obama worse than Ronald Reagan, who tripled the national debt, while convincing most Republicans that it is always a good idea to cut taxes, never a good idea to raise them, and that they can have the government they want without paying for it?

I don't think so.

 

I don't mean using internet at work. I mean the internet is causing personality disorders and overall incompetence from the culture.

 

You are clearly out of touch with what economic indicators mean, you are suffering from the delusion that supply side economics do not work. Supply side is the ONLY true way to increase national wealth and to increase the GDP. Policy does nothing to actually contribute, it can only detract.

The national debt is a factor of accumulated deficit spending, nothing else.

 

If you can post a study that confirms that I am interested in reading it.

A shy teenager with no close friends may become overly dependent on the internet. Teenage boys may acquire perceptions about female sexuality that are usually inaccurate.

For a professional writer the internet is great. The aptly named "information superhighway" makes it possible to quickly learn information that used to take one or more days at a large public or university library.

 

http://netaddiction.com/

 

supply-side economics definition

An economic theory that holds that, by lowering taxes on corporations, government can stimulate investment in industry and thereby raise production,which will, in turn, bring down prices and control inflation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supply-side economics

The decline in inflation after 1982 was due to the decline in the world price of petroleum.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

Reagan's tax cuts for corporations made the rich richer. They did not lead to more job growth. More jobs were created per year under Jimmy Carter. Many more were created per year under Bill Clinton, who raised the top tax rate.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

What Reagan's tax certainly did not do, despite his calm assurances during the 1980 campaign, was generate enough tax revenue to balance the budget.

Reagan's deficit was caused by Reagan's tax cuts and Reagan's defense buildup. It is impossible to reason with someone who refuses to acknowledge that.

 

That is an interesting article. Nevertheless, it does not provide evidence that the widespread use of the internet is increasing social problems, such as a nation wide decline in academic or work performance. While there are probably some people who are harmed by use of the internet, others benefit from its use.

 

That is a biased definition.

You focus on only one part of the equation, there can be economic growth with out job creation. The question remains, what happens to the GNP during the administration terms.Under Reagan the GNP increased an average of 10.25%/yr, BushI 6.75%/yr, Clinton 7.5%/yr, Bush2 5.0%/yr and Obama 4.4%/yr.

Under Reagan the GNPtoDebt was 50%, Under Clinton it was 55%, under Bush2 83%, Obama is at 101% and rising.

Now tell me who had the worse record.

 

Damn I just spit my drink out laughing and coughing................to