P Doggy Dog is wrong about most things, most of the time, but he's wrong about Reagan all of the time.


Let's take a look at some real honest to God facts, shall we? Yes we shall! Must be nice to be liberal and rewrite history at will, huh Pdog?


All I know is that when Reagan was president people were damned proud of America. This fucking clueless America hating fucktart has been apologizing for us since his coronation. Fuck him! He's not even deserving of being mentioned in the same breath as Ronald Reagan. If any of you Obummer drones think that Obama ranks as highly as Reagan then you are out of your fucking minds!



Riffy


______________________________



According to a 1996 study from the Cato Institute:

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.

The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
In the last year of the Carter Administration (1980) the US inflation rate climbed to a peak of 14.8%, the top individual tax payer rate was 78%, unemployment was 7.4%, federal outlay was 17% higher than the economy's growth rate, and the federal government grew while enacting loads of new spending programs.

During this period, the US economy was the worst it had been since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The nation was in quite a deep hole of economic collapse when the new president Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981. Reagan had to devise a constructive, sound tax and monetary policy to pull the US out of its economic low point.

Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever.

The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981-1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The economic principle that business expansion, jobs and wealth follow low tax rates is widely accepted.

I always find it remarkable that Reagan is the poster boy for American conservatives while under his watch the US took huge loans to keep the economy going. I believe it was tripled under his leadership? So what makes his spending spree different from Obama's? Reagan's cool with the cons because he spent the cash on nukes instead of healthcare? Just asking here..

Teiz wrote on Mar 26^th, 2010 at 8:09am:


Reagan actually started to effort to reduce nukes. Good for him. It's the only Reagan issue I agreed with in 8 years.

Perhaps he was popular for cutting vegetables from school lunch programs, citing ketchup and relish as suitable replacements?
That must have saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. And really, do inner city kids really eat their veggie's anyway? We all know they aren't going to grow up, become successful, and contribute to the party. That's a perfect target for cuts.


Saw this on TPM:

In an interview with TPM, a Richmond Police Department spokesman said the bullet that penetrated a window in a building that includes a campaign office of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) was "an act of random gunfire."

"What we were describing yesterday in fact describes an act of random gunfire," said Public Information Manager Gene Lepley.

Cantor held a nationally televised press conference yesterday in which he said, "Just recently, I have been directly threatened. A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week." He said he has been targeted not only because he is a member of Congress, but also because he is Jewish.

In his press conference yesterday -- held amid multiple reports of threats and acts of vandalism against Democrats nationwide -- Cantor accused Dems of "dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon."


The story apparently first broke as an "exclusive" on the Web site of Fox News. The Fox piece began this way:

   FOX has learned that the Richmond, VA campaign office of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) was shot at Monday.

   Cantor, is the highest-elected Jewish official in the country and the only Jewish Republican in the House.

Here's a screen grab from the network's coverage of the incident yesterday:

Gotta say fuman, I know you some of you libs reflexively re-write history, and will blindly spin a story to cover up the facts.  But you are delusional on this one.
---------------------------------
By JOHN FUND
President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.

***
Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.

Justice spokesman Alejandro Miyar says the dismissal was "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." But Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.), has been asking for more information. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch, for example, claims in a July 13 letter to Mr. Wolf that charges against the New Black Panther Party itself were dropped because there wasn't "evidentiary support" to prove they "directed" the intimidation. But Mr. Wolf notes in a letter sent to Justice that one defendant, Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, said on Fox News just after the election that his activities at the polling station were part of a nationwide effort. Mr. Shabazz added that the Black Panther activities in Philadelphia were justified due to "an emergency situation."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

----------

If you are against the threats of violence against Congressmen and woman after the vote this week, howe can you even attempt to justify this.  And Philly was not the only city that experienced this.

fuman wrote on Mar 26^th, 2010 at 3:39pm:



I lived in Philly and grew up in AC... the racism is insane... cuts both ways and sideways... Philly was where the MOVE stuff went down... I'm surprised this happened in Philly... It's very weird this is being brought up now, as a response to healthcare and the threats (Riffy said never happened)... This I know, not one person was turned away or denied the right vote in Philly b/c of these idiots, sounds like some douchebags being douchebags. Funny how we've never seen Nanky or Riffy upset when these stories about voters being turned away, mattered before... too bad those were cases of polling place in democratic areas...

lotsajizz wrote on Mar 27^th, 2010 at 6:31am:

What year was it when they received the bailout?

Barack, as BJ loves to call him, is an incompetent fuckstick who will go down in history as the worst president in history.

Tomorrow I am going to walk you putzes through this thing.