“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well, I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down — up to man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.
“Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people . Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.” ~ Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan greatly increased the size and spending of the federal government. When he took office in 1981, there were approximately 2,875,000 federal employees, and when he left office in 1989, there were 3,113,000, for an increase of 238,000.
ReplyDeleteThe national debt went from $848 billion to more than $2.6 trillion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
Here is a little known fact: the Federal Government grew by 12% in the first 16 months of Obama compared to 8% for all 8 years of Reagan . . . . but, the government has less employees today, than in June of 2010, because of the recession and the poor shape of the economy. Reagan tripled the national debt, adding 1.8 trillion which was only 35% of our GDP. Obama will double our debt from from 10 trillion to 20 trillion, which will be nearly 90% of our GDP !!! Reagan added 20 million net jobs . . . . none of which were "dot com" jobs. Obama's net job record is close to zero - close to as many people have left the work force as have found jobs and the food stamp roles have doubled to more than 48 millionl proof of the continuing recession within the working Middle Class, a group of people Obama could not care less about. Six years into Reagan, our GDP was rolling along at 8/9 %. Obama is averaging 2.2 annually, including 2014.
DeleteRead the Forbes article, it debunks the tired fake talking points the above excuse machine generates - particularly his smoke screen BS about 'The labor participation rate'.
DeleteThe fact is: Obama out performs Reagan in every aspect.
Recently, Initial claims for unemployment drop to the lowest level in 14 years - all the way back to 2000 - indicating an improved economy, additional jobs and fewer people looking for work.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
The Forbes article referenced, above, is as sophomoric a defense of Obamanomics as anything I have read in the last couple of years. The author, a Marxist oriented Progressive, wants the reader to believe that the Stock Market is an indicator of the financial health and stability of this once great nation. Problem: Progressives hate Big Money and its capitalist center, Wall Street. But the “problem” is more involved than their demonstrable hypocrisy. In terms of its record gains, the Market has been the long time recipient of corporate welfare in the form of Quantitative Easing throughout the Obama years. Under this process, the Feds assume liability for money invested or lent out, making that same money available, again and again, for further investments. Wall Street cannot run out of money, under this system, until the value of the investment dollar becomes so deflated that Easing must stop. When Easing does stop, interest rates will increase, and the world on Wall Street changes, overnight. As things stand, now, Easing has benefited Big Money capitalism to the exclusion of private retirement funds. While making money in the here and now, Americans cannot grow their retirement funds because the interest rates are around 1% . . . . . cheap money for the investor; no future for the retirement community.
DeleteSecondly, the Forbes article, above, ignores the fact of a declining laborforce participation rate. Read the article, indeed!! You will find the author explaining the declining laborforce in terms of Baby Boomer retirement. There is a nominal 78 million Boomers. The oldest were born in 1945/46, the youngest were born in 1964. That is the Boomer Generation.
What this Forbes moron does not understand is this: the labor force is more correctly labeled “the available labor force.” The labor force does not include those who have retired or are disabled and cannot work. Now, here is the problem: during the Bush years, no fewer than 66% of the AVAILABEL American laborforce, had jobs and participated in the economy in that way. Today, under Obama, the participation rate of those available for employment, has fallen to 62.7%, the lowest participation rate in 36 years.
In April of 2014, as an example, 288,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate went down. BUT, 800,000 Americans stopped participating in the labor force. As far as numbers are concerned, these people are no longer counted as “unemployed,” of, OF COURSE, it appears that they went back to work. 9 million Americans have left the work force, stopped looking for jobs that are not there, moved back in their parents or are working “under the table.” How many jobs does Obama claim as “created?” 9 million. 9 million jobs versus 9 million folks who have given up on getting a job equals ZERO.
Finaly, the reference article, above, claims 64 months of continuous economic expansion . . . . . . an outright lie. “Economic expansion” is measured by “GDP.” Bush had 52 months of continuous expansion, 52 months of a growing GDP. Obama made it to 49 before the first quarter report for 2014, in which the economy lost 2.2% as a measure of GDP.
Compare participation rates at this gov site: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Oh, BTW, here is a Forbes article that says the opposite to the Forbes article referenced by our One World/Progressives pundit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/10/09/when-it-comes-to-job-creation-obama-doesnt-hold-a-candle-to-reagan/
Reagan was the kind of conservative politician liberals claim to prefer, strong and determined but willing to compromise, even on important issues, in order to get things done in congress. He trusted the Democrats of his day, although they often lied to his face. I do not think he would have succeeded as a "conservative" in some regions of this country dominated by tea party conservatives, and I respect tea party values. Ann Coulter drives me nuts, but she is right about one thing: in order to win elections, patriotic America will have to ride in the GOP Establishment boat.
ReplyDeleteConservatives have criticized Obama for high gas prices in the past. Will they now credit him for the lowest gas prices in 4 yrs? Hell no.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bush left office, gas at the pump was $1.84 per gallon. I am supposed to give Obama credit for bringing the prince back "down" three bucks ?? Besides, high gas prices are part of Obama's plan to cut down on emissions. Progressives don't give a crap about gas prices or the effect they have on the working Middle Class.
DeleteGas:
Deletehttps://c1.staticflickr.com/1/111/293457625_10b568f7c7.jpg
I could post a number of pictures of Obama bowing down to our enemies or leaning over, on stage, and promising Putin that he would be more flexible, as an ally of Putin's plans.
DeleteBut kissing a Saudi king in public? Imagine he was kissing his ass in private. The country that gave us most of the 9/11 attackers, and Bush kisses his ass.
DeleteGood grief. You think that picture is not photo-shopped . . . . . and Obama has been doing the same, since he took over the throne. No excuse for it, but you do not have a winning argument, here, in view of the fact that Obama is the most prolific butt kisser of enemy ass, in our life-time.
DeletePlease, I beg you, please tell Putin I will do much better after the election. I promise.