Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The right wing's method of operation is "tear the other guy down".  Hopefully, if we can smear enough mud on the democrat guy, our guy will look better.  You know, it works on a lot of people.

If the leading indicators improved under a republican president as much as they have under Obama, the righties would want him put on Mount Rushmore.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Typical to the left -- move along, nothing to see here -- meanwhile people can see Godzilla! So far, the GDP average under Obama is 1.75 percent -- worst recovery since the Depression, 

dire it's one-hellava-task to recover from bush destruction.

bush wars to make the wealthy richer did a number on this country.

now we have isis as a gift of bush. you are increasingly rabid.

Back to the title of this thread, those here who dammed Bush for his vacations should be damming Obama and those who gave Bush a pass should be doing the same for Obama. As for me, the only thing I wished Obama had done is that he should have started his statements after the parents of Foley had finished their presser. I know for some Obama's actions would seem callous and aloof, but then again the thugs who beheaded James Foley don't need to see a frightened leader. The "don't let them see you sweat" theory.

In your opinion, what is the president supposed to do?

_____________________________________________________________

 

It would have helped if Obama in 2010 behaved like Clinton after the1994 shellacking and got out of the way of economic growth. The only thing that I can see that Obama proposed that worked is sequestration. If the growth of government is cut, a few dollars that would have been borrowed by the fools in D.C. can be used in the economy.

Originally Posted by Stanky:

In your opinion, what is the president supposed to do?

_____________________________________________________________

 

It would have helped if Obama in 2010 behaved like Clinton after the1994 shellacking and got out of the way of economic growth. The only thing that I can see that Obama proposed that worked is sequestration. If the growth of government is cut, a few dollars that would have been borrowed by the fools in D.C. can be used in the economy.

+++

 

Stanky, can you give me an example of sequestration that worked out?  You're not referring to carbon credits, are you?

 

Just trying to get on the same page.  Thanks.

 

Bud

 

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

In your opinion, what is the president supposed to do?

_____________________________________________________________

 

It would have helped if Obama in 2010 behaved like Clinton after the1994 shellacking and got out of the way of economic growth. The only thing that I can see that Obama proposed that worked is sequestration. If the growth of government is cut, a few dollars that would have been borrowed by the fools in D.C. can be used in the economy.

+++

 

Stanky, can you give me an example of sequestration that worked out?  You're not referring to carbon credits, are you?

 

Just trying to get on the same page.  Thanks.

 

Bud

__________________________________________________________________________

The budget sequestration in 2013 refers to the automatic spending cuts to United States federal government spending in particular categories of outlays[note 1] that were initially set to begin on January 1, 2013, as an austerity fiscal policy as a result of Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), and were postponed by two months by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 until March 1 when this law went into effect.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...equestration_in_2013

 

This is the what was supposed to "end the world as we know it" last year, kill countless cute puppies and kittens, and give Obama gas. Instead it seems to have stabilized the economy like the 1990's sort-of-austerity.

 

I have a question for the Obama supporters, not to be rude but because I’m nothing more than curious. First of all, I have a friend who’s husband, is what I call a thick skin democrat,  tell me that he doesn't like Obama, but if he could run for President again, he would vote for him because he would have no choice! What?!? We always have a choice! But because he is a “Die Hard” Democrat, there is no other choice for him.

My question is for the democrats reading this. Are you happy with the way your President is doing & handling things? Any misgivings about him at all? Some of you may answer positive simply because you’re a Democrat. I would hope some of you, preferably all, would answer truthfully because of any dissatisfaction you feel with the job he’s doing, Democrat or not.

It shouldn’t matter which President did what wrong. None of them have ever been perfect. Just because Bush may have done this or that wrong, does that mean it’s Ok for Obama to do something wrong too?

I guess if I have to claim one party or another, I would call myself a Republican. I prefer to vote as to what a person stands for & what he believes in, not a party. I voted for Obama, not because I liked him, but because I mistakenly thought he was the lesser of two evils, which I found real quickly to be a mistake, & I am so ashamed of that vote!

I’m not trying to start an argument, just curious of the opinions of the Democrats.

I vote democrat. The reason is, because every time legislation is proposed that is detrimental to labor, it is always introduced and supported by republicans. The democrats have not passed anything really helpful to labor because the other side always blocks it. I'm not happy with all that Obama has done. If Romney had won, it would have been far worse for labor than what we have now.

Abortion:  Why don't either side get a constitutional amendment started to outlaw abortions?  I can answer that.  The democrats would lose money and the republicans would lose one third of their normal platform.

 

There goes jt again, Waaaaaaaaaaa

That is Best at the best. No solutions, JT is a dummy. No facts. Typical

 

As far as Obama getting out of the way, please explain that in depth

 

 

That is Best at the best. No solutions, JT is a dummy. No facts. Typical

----------------------------------------------------------

My fact, unless you claim now you didn't post this "rinse and repeat" statement you use all the time:

 

The right wing's method of operation is "tear the other guy down".  Hopefully, if we can smear enough mud on the democrat guy, our guy will look better.

 

---------------------------------------------------

My solution? Get the do nothing productive, know nothing about running a country, democrats out of office. Now then, start the jt spin again, claiming I don't have facts or solutions. You're the one without facts or solutions. All the left wants to do when criticized about their muck ups is claim they're being unfairly attacked. This is a bit more serious than jt getting his $30.00 an hour, even though he admits he could live on less but wouldn't, even if it meant someone else could have a job. There are people without jobs, without hopes of ever having a job, and your solution for that is to try and rob someone else to give them money, support them like you'd support a pet. Just don't rob you. Right? Yeah, thought so. Just like you keep yapping about the salaries of CEOs. I asked you when would YOU have said enough and stopped taking raises. Would there have ever come a time when jt said, "oh, that's enough pay for what I do, keep it and hire someone else"? You wouldn't answer that question, but I can answer it for you, of course you wouldn't turn it down.

 

I don't live in your world of old retired people who are "getting theirs" because unions extorted it for them. I live in the world where people are trying to run businesses, or find jobs so they can work and support families. Businesses that are having to fight their own freaking government and people like you who sit back "with yours" and try to tell others how to run those businesses when you have no clue how it works because "yours" was always handed to you, or invite the rest of the world into the country and support and care for them before you worry about the people born and raised here. There are plenty of solutions, and plenty have been suggested. The problem with the left, those solutions would take their fangs and claws out of the people of this country, and that is the last thing the left wants to happen.

 

 

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

In your opinion, what is the president supposed to do?

_____________________________________________________________

 

It would have helped if Obama in 2010 behaved like Clinton after the1994 shellacking and got out of the way of economic growth. The only thing that I can see that Obama proposed that worked is sequestration. If the growth of government is cut, a few dollars that would have been borrowed by the fools in D.C. can be used in the economy.

+++

 

Stanky, can you give me an example of sequestration that worked out?  You're not referring to carbon credits, are you?

 

Just trying to get on the same page.  Thanks.

 

Bud

__________________________________________________________________________

The budget sequestration in 2013 refers to the automatic spending cuts to United States federal government spending in particular categories of outlays[note 1] that were initially set to begin on January 1, 2013, as an austerity fiscal policy as a result of Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), and were postponed by two months by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 until March 1 when this law went into effect.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...equestration_in_2013

 

This is the what was supposed to "end the world as we know it" last year, kill countless cute puppies and kittens, and give Obama gas. Instead it seems to have stabilized the economy like the 1990's sort-of-austerity.

 

+++

 

Thanks.  I was on a different page.

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

I have a question for the Obama supporters, not to be rude but because I’m nothing more than curious. First of all, I have a friend who’s husband, is what I call a thick skin democrat,  tell me that he doesn't like Obama, but if he could run for President again, he would vote for him because he would have no choice! What?!? We always have a choice! But because he is a “Die Hard” Democrat, there is no other choice for him.

My question is for the democrats reading this. Are you happy with the way your President is doing & handling things? Any misgivings about him at all? Some of you may answer positive simply because you’re a Democrat. I would hope some of you, preferably all, would answer truthfully because of any dissatisfaction you feel with the job he’s doing, Democrat or not.

It shouldn’t matter which President did what wrong. None of them have ever been perfect. Just because Bush may have done this or that wrong, does that mean it’s Ok for Obama to do something wrong too?

I guess if I have to claim one party or another, I would call myself a Republican. I prefer to vote as to what a person stands for & what he believes in, not a party. I voted for Obama, not because I liked him, but because I mistakenly thought he was the lesser of two evils, which I found real quickly to be a mistake, & I am so ashamed of that vote!

I’m not trying to start an argument, just curious of the opinions of the Democrats.

ding ding ding Hello Hello Semi.....one is wise who votes for the party; not the man.

I will be voting Hendershot for Sheriff simply because he is a Democrat.

You on the other hand will vote against him because he has been married several times.

Dire for instance voted against Obama cause he was a Black man. He despises blacks

 and because the hogs he worked for in Atlanta patted him on the head and told him he could be one of their buddies if he voted against Obama. Then they gave him a watch and put him out to pasture. That's the way repugs operate. It's not too late to pay them back. He could vote Democrat.

Originally Posted by Stanky:

In your opinion, what is the president supposed to do?

_____________________________________________________________

 

It would have helped if Obama in 2010 behaved like Clinton after the1994 shellacking and got out of the way of economic growth. The only thing that I can see that Obama proposed that worked is sequestration. If the growth of government is cut, a few dollars that would have been borrowed by the fools in D.C. can be used in the economy.

================

Do you not think it would have been more beneficial to the country as a whole if the Congressional Republicans had worked to help the economy and worked with the president instead of agreeing in a meeting at the same time Obama was giving his inauguration speech to oppose every single thing he proposed, even if it was something they had supported in the past ?
The president proposed a jobs bill to repair infrastructure in all the states. Here in Alabama it would have put roughly 18,000 people to work rebuilding our bridges and roads. Our two senators both voted against it, not for the betterment of Alabama, but just because they wanted to deny the Black president anything successful.
I could give more examples, but you all know them.
The only thing the R's propose is cutting more taxes for the rich and passing the cost on to the poor and the elderly.  The American people voted (not once , but twice) against that economic philosophy , and Obama told the R's that in one of their first meetings. Made no difference.
Now to get to Semi's question:
No, there are things that Obama has done or suggested that I am not at all h appy with, but , the right wing lies notwithstanding, anybody who does not see that our economy is much better now,  That almost immediately the jobs situation started getting better after Obama took office, is just a fool. We don't have the glowing economy we had during the Clinton years it is true, but the Bush depression was so much worse than the Reagan depression , that by comparison, I'm not sure by comparison, this is not a better economy. More than half of one of the 3 (4 if you count the press) branches of the government has consistentlyvoted to worsen our economy for their own political reasons and to try to discredit the Black guy. Well, he has succeeded anyway, but truthfully, we could be a lot better off had Boner and McConnell contributed instead of obstructed .

 

They voted for massive spending for projects which were never done Hundreds of billions frittered away on stupid things that didn't help.  Present funding for infrastructure from the gas tax has been misspent on museums, tourist attractions and bridle path. Plus, much was spent on new projects, but little on maintenance of existing infrastructure -- politicians love to cut ribbons on new projects, no publicity for maintaining bridges. 

 

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

In your opinion, what is the president supposed to do?

_____________________________________________________________

 

It would have helped if Obama in 2010 behaved like Clinton after the1994 shellacking and got out of the way of economic growth. The only thing that I can see that Obama proposed that worked is sequestration. If the growth of government is cut, a few dollars that would have been borrowed by the fools in D.C. can be used in the economy.

================

Do you not think it would have been more beneficial to the country as a whole if the Congressional Republicans had worked to help the economy and worked with the president instead of agreeing in a meeting at the same time Obama was giving his inauguration speech to oppose every single thing he proposed, even if it was something they had supported in the past ?
The president proposed a jobs bill to repair infrastructure in all the states. Here in Alabama it would have put roughly 18,000 people to work rebuilding our bridges and roads. Our two senators both voted against it, not for the betterment of Alabama, but just because they wanted to deny the Black president anything successful.
I could give more examples, but you all know them.
The only thing the R's propose is cutting more taxes for the rich and passing the cost on to the poor and the elderly.  The American people voted (not once , but twice) against that economic philosophy , and Obama told the R's that in one of their first meetings. Made no difference.
Now to get to Semi's question:
No, there are things that Obama has done or suggested that I am not at all h appy with, but , the right wing lies notwithstanding, anybody who does not see that our economy is much better now,  That almost immediately the jobs situation started getting better after Obama took office, is just a fool. We don't have the glowing economy we had during the Clinton years it is true, but the Bush depression was so much worse than the Reagan depression , that by comparison, I'm not sure by comparison, this is not a better economy. More than half of one of the 3 (4 if you count the press) branches of the government has consistentlyvoted to worsen our economy for their own political reasons and to try to discredit the Black guy. Well, he has succeeded anyway, but truthfully, we could be a lot better off had Boner and McConnell contributed instead of obstructed .

 

________________________________________________________

Reagan depression  -- straight out propaganda having no basis in truth There was no depression. let alone a recession during the Reagan administration.

 

 

Reagan GDP

\

Average GDP growth was 7.9 percent .  So far, for Obama its a miserable 1.75 percent.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Reagan GDP
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

In your opinion, what is the president supposed to do?

_____________________________________________________________

 

It would have helped if Obama in 2010 behaved like Clinton after the1994 shellacking and got out of the way of economic growth. The only thing that I can see that Obama proposed that worked is sequestration. If the growth of government is cut, a few dollars that would have been borrowed by the fools in D.C. can be used in the economy.

================

Do you not think it would have been more beneficial to the country as a whole if the Congressional Republicans had worked to help the economy and worked with the president instead of agreeing in a meeting at the same time Obama was giving his inauguration speech to oppose every single thing he proposed, even if it was something they had supported in the past ?
The president proposed a jobs bill to repair infrastructure in all the states. Here in Alabama it would have put roughly 18,000 people to work rebuilding our bridges and roads. Our two senators both voted against it, not for the betterment of Alabama, but just because they wanted to deny the Black president anything successful.
I could give more examples, but you all know them.
The only thing the R's propose is cutting more taxes for the rich and passing the cost on to the poor and the elderly.  The American people voted (not once , but twice) against that economic philosophy , and Obama told the R's that in one of their first meetings. Made no difference.
Now to get to Semi's question:
No, there are things that Obama has done or suggested that I am not at all h appy with, but , the right wing lies notwithstanding, anybody who does not see that our economy is much better now,  That almost immediately the jobs situation started getting better after Obama took office, is just a fool. We don't have the glowing economy we had during the Clinton years it is true, but the Bush depression was so much worse than the Reagan depression , that by comparison, I'm not sure by comparison, this is not a better economy. More than half of one of the 3 (4 if you count the press) branches of the government has consistentlyvoted to worsen our economy for their own political reasons and to try to discredit the Black guy. Well, he has succeeded anyway, but truthfully, we could be a lot better off had Boner and McConnell contributed instead of obstructed .

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

The only things the fool in the White House has done before he offered the idea of the sequester was make business operations more expensive. Take Obamadon'care, making higher employment costs caused employers to put more employees on part time hours and/or work the fewer existing employees harder rather than hiring back laid off employees. 

 

In the new landscape of the American labor market, jobs are easier to come by but hours remain in short supply.

 

New government data released Thursday showed the economy added 288,000 jobs in June — the fifth straight month gains have topped the critical benchmark of 200,000. The unemployment rate fell to 6.1 percent, down more than a percentage point over the past year.

 

But there’s a gnawing fear among some economists that the improving data provides false comfort. The number of people in part-time jobs jumped by more than 1 million in June to 27 million, according to the government’s data, making it one of the corners of the labor market that has been slowest to heal. That has led to worries that the workforce may be becoming permanently polarized, with part-timers stuck on one side and full-time workers on the other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...e35962a52_story.html

 

Only ideological buffoons can praise such performance. If the EPA's carbon rules stand I suspect that energy intensive manufacturing will leave for the orient as well in spite of the fact that we have abundant fuel supplies. I guess we can create an economy where we all sell handmade crafts and organically grown vegetables to each other.

 

Probably the next president will inherit the next big bust caused by the laws passed in the 2009-2011 years unless the rest of the world really goes to hell. Obama has kept postponing the implementation of Obamadon'care and the full effects of Dodd-Frank, EPA rules, and other hindrances won't ferment in time to stink up the economy until the next administration. But what do idiots care, its all about one person of the right political party who swings the magic wand.

 

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

sorry to spoil it for you, dire. the sources  are underneath each point.. kinda hard to argue with that... unless you're a rt. wingnut.

==========

It is difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores facts and history.
Dire even thinks the New Deal was a failure, Bush2 was a success, and the good times we had under Clinton were the result of Reagan. Can't get more screwed up thinking than that.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

sorry to spoil it for you, dire. the sources  are underneath each point.. kinda hard to argue with that... unless you're a rt. wingnut.

==========

It is difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores facts and history.
Dire even thinks the New Deal was a failure, Bush2 was a success, and the good times we had under Clinton were the result of Reagan. Can't get more screwed up thinking than that.

 

______________________________________________________________________

Crash's comments have nothing to do with what I posted.  Of course, that is standard for him.

Seeweed, you are the one screaming about a non-existent depression under Reagan. 

 

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by direstraits:

A propaganda website, partially funded with federal government money. No, I'm not impressed. Much of the legislation did little towards recovery. Some has been so harsh they delayed or stopped the creation of small regional banks the left pushes as a counter to the large banks and other small businesses.

 
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

sorry to spoil it for you, dire. the sources  are underneath each point.. kinda hard to argue with that... unless you're a rt. wingnut.

==========

It is difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores facts and history.
Dire even thinks the New Deal was a failure, Bush2 was a success, and the good times we had under Clinton were the result of Reagan. Can't get more screwed up thinking than that.

 

______________________________________________________________________

Crash's comments have nothing to do with what I posted.  Of course, that is standard for him.

Seeweed, you are the one screaming about a non-existent depression under Reagan. 

 

______________

 

well, lets see.. what dire calls a 'propaganda website' contains links to prove each point.. and 'crash's comments have nothing to do with what i posted', after i mention such links.  i sure hope dire and best get along in bizarro world.. kinda like adam and eve.. they're the only two people there!

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

sorry to spoil it for you, dire. the sources  are underneath each point.. kinda hard to argue with that... unless you're a rt. wingnut.

==========

It is difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores facts and history.
Dire even thinks the New Deal was a failure, Bush2 was a success, and the good times we had under Clinton were the result of Reagan. Can't get more screwed up thinking than that.

 

______________________________________________________________________

Crash's comments have nothing to do with what I posted.  Of course, that is standard for him.

Seeweed, you are the one screaming about a non-existent depression under Reagan. 

 

==========

I'm not even going to find a web site, just state a personal experience.
In 1985 I was let go from my job of 20 years (along with 15 other low level managers the same day).

I had skills and a craft so I went to the largest employer of that craft in the US. I was told that they had laid off 20,000 nationally (so far) and employees with over 20 years service were worrying about being next. At least for 20,001 , there was a depression .
Some terms were coined during the Reagan depression - downsizing, rightsizing, RIF (reduction in force), along with the words used to describe the new upper management bunch  - headcutter, axeman, and a host more of both sides that this margarita is preventing me from remembering.
There sure as hell was a depression during the Reagan term. where were you, in high school ?

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

sorry to spoil it for you, dire. the sources  are underneath each point.. kinda hard to argue with that... unless you're a rt. wingnut.

==========

It is difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores facts and history.
Dire even thinks the New Deal was a failure, Bush2 was a success, and the good times we had under Clinton were the result of Reagan. Can't get more screwed up thinking than that.

 

______________________________________________________________________

Crash's comments have nothing to do with what I posted.  Of course, that is standard for him.

Seeweed, you are the one screaming about a non-existent depression under Reagan. 

 

==========

I'm not even going to find a web site, just state a personal experience.
In 1985 I was let go from my job of 20 years (along with 15 other low level managers the same day).

I had skills and a craft so I went to the largest employer of that craft in the US. I was told that they had laid off 20,000 nationally (so far) and employees with over 20 years service were worrying about being next. At least for 20,001 , there was a depression .
Some terms were coined during the Reagan depression - downsizing, rightsizing, RIF (reduction in force), along with the words used to describe the new upper management bunch  - headcutter, axeman, and a host more of both sides that this margarita is preventing me from remembering.
There sure as hell was a depression during the Reagan term. where were you, in high school ?

 ____________________________________________________________________

I grew up during the period the Shoals prospered from several industries and a larger TVA which employed many and paid well.  Graduated from high school in 1965 and UNA in 1969.  By then, businesses were closing and the local economy was declining.  After I returned from the Army in 1972, the problem was much worse -- the four towns were ghosts of themselves.  I finished my MBA in 1973.  During my studies, I realized job prospects were bleak in the area.  So, I applied for positions out of the area. 

 

My ancestors boarded creaky ships held together with wooden pegs and powered by the wind to seek a better life in the 1600s Surely, I could drive a second hand Mercury to Atlanta. I worked for a CPA firm, from intern to partner. 

 

Seeweed, you are appear to be suffering from cognitive dissonance -- "In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values"  per Wiki.

 

You experienced a downsizing in you company (TVA?) and blame it on Reagan.  Despite the fact that employment and the GDP was up in most of the nation -- a recovery from the disastrous Carter years, you are convinced that Reagan caused your problems. 

 

Even when shown facts, you can't grasp reality -- Reagan caused a depression.  We are prospering under Obama. 

 

Best I can suggest is psychiatric help to ease you back into reality. 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

sorry to spoil it for you, dire. the sources  are underneath each point.. kinda hard to argue with that... unless you're a rt. wingnut.

==========

It is difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who ignores facts and history.
Dire even thinks the New Deal was a failure, Bush2 was a success, and the good times we had under Clinton were the result of Reagan. Can't get more screwed up thinking than that.

 

______________________________________________________________________

Crash's comments have nothing to do with what I posted.  Of course, that is standard for him.

Seeweed, you are the one screaming about a non-existent depression under Reagan. 

 

==========

I'm not even going to find a web site, just state a personal experience.
In 1985 I was let go from my job of 20 years (along with 15 other low level managers the same day).

I had skills and a craft so I went to the largest employer of that craft in the US. I was told that they had laid off 20,000 nationally (so far) and employees with over 20 years service were worrying about being next. At least for 20,001 , there was a depression .
Some terms were coined during the Reagan depression - downsizing, rightsizing, RIF (reduction in force), along with the words used to describe the new upper management bunch  - headcutter, axeman, and a host more of both sides that this margarita is preventing me from remembering.
There sure as hell was a depression during the Reagan term. where were you, in high school ?

 ____________________________________________________________________

I grew up during the period the Shoals prospered from several industries and a larger TVA which employed many and paid well.  Graduated from high school in 1965 and UNA in 1969.  By then, businesses were closing and the local economy was declining.  After I returned from the Army in 1972, the problem was much worse -- the four towns were ghosts of themselves.  I finished my MBA in 1973.  During my studies, I realized job prospects were bleak in the area.  So, I applied for positions out of the area. 

 

My ancestors boarded creaky ships held together with wooden pegs and powered by the wind to seek a better life in the 1600s Surely, I could drive a second hand Mercury to Atlanta. I worked for a CPA firm, from intern to partner. 

 

Seeweed, you are appear to be suffering from cognitive dissonance -- "In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values"  per Wiki.

 

You experienced a downsizing in you company (TVA?) and blame it on Reagan.  Despite the fact that employment and the GDP was up in most of the nation -- a recovery from the disastrous Carter years, you are convinced that Reagan caused your problems. 

 

Even when shown facts, you can't grasp reality -- Reagan caused a depression.  We are prospering under Obama. 

 

Best I can suggest is psychiatric help to ease you back into reality. 

NO, I got my job at TVA during Bush1 years, it was the bank .
The primary stress in my life is when I am floating on the raft in my pool making vitamin D,  and a mosquito lands on me and I have to move a muscle to slap him. Gin and tonic takes care of anything less annoying like your brainwashed mindset.

 

 

I grew up during the period the Shoals prospered from several industries and a larger TVA which employed many and paid well.  Graduated from high school in 1965 and UNA in 1969.  By then, businesses were closing and the local economy was declining.  After I returned from the Army in 1972, the problem was much worse -- the four towns were ghosts of themselves.  I finished my MBA in 1973.  During my studies, I realized job prospects were bleak in the area.  So, I applied for positions out of the area. 

 

I graduated from a local high school in 1966  I returned from the army in 1971, I don't remember things being that bleak. Jobs were easy to find, after 1981, jobs were bleak. I do remember that temporary employment agencies really blossomed after Reagan went into office.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I grew up during the period the Shoals prospered from several industries and a larger TVA which employed many and paid well.  Graduated from high school in 1965 and UNA in 1969.  By then, businesses were closing and the local economy was declining.  After I returned from the Army in 1972, the problem was much worse -- the four towns were ghosts of themselves.  I finished my MBA in 1973.  During my studies, I realized job prospects were bleak in the area.  So, I applied for positions out of the area. 

 

I graduated from a local high school in 1966  I returned from the army in 1971, I don't remember things being that bleak. Jobs were easy to find, after 1981, jobs were bleak. I do remember that temporary employment agencies really blossomed after Reagan went into office.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Job opportunities were bleak for a CPA unless one wished to do taxes -- not my favorite, although I did tax work at first, like most new employees. in a CPA firm. 

 

Seeweedm and you conveniently forget stagflation that persisted from Nixon thru Carter.  Both of you project hard times in the Shoals to all the country and blame it on Reagan.  I've shown the real GPD stats.  Persistent denial doesn't make it so.

 

Inflation Rate:

 

 

united-states-inflation-cpi

http://www.tradingeconomics.co...states/inflation-cpi

 

 

Unemployment Rate:

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

 

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • united-states-inflation-cpi

dire better tell reagan there was no recession..  dire must be having a blast, in bizarro world.

The 1982 recession during the Reagan Administration resulted in high interest rates, homelessness, and unemployment. "We are really in trouble," Reagan confided to his diary.

 

Fall 1982
The nation sinks into its worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan fears budget deficits as high as $200 billion. On Nov. 1, more than 9 million Americans are officially unemployed.

http://www.npr.org/news/specia...reagan/timeline.html

 

 

 

Last edited by Crash.Override

How cute, one our resident lefties got a quote from equally leftie NPR on the Reagan economy. I'm certain my fellow conservatives and libertarians may find it cute.  However, remember leaving a leftie alone with economics may be as dangerous as giving a small child a loaded weapon or matches to play with.

 

First,  the definition of recession:

 

"A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. A recession is typically accompanied by a drop in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the housing market."

Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/4...n.html#ixzz3BPeXih46

 

Got that, two consecutive quarterly declines in the GDP.

 

Now, the quarterly GDP averages for 1981 to 1982

 

gdp 1981 1982

 

Please observe, there was ONE NEGATIVE QUARTER OF DECLINE.   Therefore, there was no recession and definitely no depression,  In fact, look at the other quarters, Obama hasn't had any as good as those.  Yes, there was a temporary rise in unemployment and a quarterly decline.  An economy takes time to adjust.  Better a few months of bad news, than years and years of bad news as one experiences in a left wing economy.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • gdp 1981 1982
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

That unemployment chart may be correct for everything in America. I knew some people who worked on the SDI program at Huntsville when Reagan was president, they made out like a fat rat.  I also know that chart don't reflect the construction trades unemployment rate.  It was far higher than 5% in 1990

____________________________________________________________|
In the early 1980s in Atlanta, I remember plenty of construction -- both on the roads and the private sector.  The MARTA  subway system construction kept the place a mess.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×