kaysbrew says: "California and liberalism..."
--------------------
California had a REPUBLICAN governor for 16 of the past 24 years. Are you claiming that Arnold was a Democrat? During his 8 years, how much conservatising did he do?

Another Executive Order signed by the President. Bypass Congress again to keep people on welfare with no incentive to find work or even think about working.

Plantation politics.
Congress put in law on purpose work requirements must be met and could not be changed - Not for this lawless President dictator.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1...
True fiscal conservatives could have made the Bush cuts permanent, by merely cutting spending an equal amount. They didn`t, and "supply side", "trickle down", did not work. Between Bush and Obama, almost $5 trillion in tax cuts, and look at where we are.Plus an unpaid for Medicare drug bill, two wars on the credit card, eliminating "PAYGO". Reagan tripled the debt with "supply side", quite an accomplishment!
By the way, the top 50% of taxpayers in the US have around $7 trillion in income, the bottom 50% around $1 trillion. Where do you go for the taxes?

http://portman.senate.gov/public/index.c...

"While President Obama calls for higher taxes on jobs creators, two new government reports undercut his class warfare argument and the basis for calls for higher taxes. While I doubt these new studies will cause President Obama to change his tune, because too often, with this President, politics trumps good policy, yet another of his straw men has fallen flat. As the nation careens toward a fiscal cliff, real leadership, not more rhetoric and finger pointing, is necessary to reform our tax code and address Washington’s out of control spending.

Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) final report on what caused the January 2001 projection of a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus to turn into an actual $6.1 trillion deficit over that 10-year period shows that: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofi...

The tax policies enacted a decade ago are responsible for just 16 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit. Furthermore, given that only about one-fourth of the tax cuts went to upper-income earners, just 1/25th of the decline from surpluses to deficits resulted from upper-income tax cuts. (NOTE: Given that CBO does not take into account any of the positive impact of tax cuts on investment, savings and economic growth, the percentage was actually even smaller than the 1/25th estimate)

The CBO report has shown that new spending and net interest were three times as responsible for the deficits as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts – and 12 times as responsible as the upper-income portion of the tax cuts.

In a second report, the CBO said that in both 2008 and 2009, the highest-earning 20 percent of taxpayers paid 94 percent of the total income tax burden – up from 86 percent in 2007, and 81 percent before the 2001 tax cuts. In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called Bush tax cuts."
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofi...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...

That didn't work for you either, Gazettefan!

Perhaps, Bowlgal. But when you went out of your way and off-topic on three different articles to deride me for my on-topic comments with your misspelled word, and all I did in reply was to correct your spelling, perhaps it's not the left or I you need to worry about.

Whatever poobah, I have come to learn since the leftist took over of the capitol and this eye opening first hand experience on this site, the left are incapable of tolerance and take advantage of the slightest little thing.
Most people who are of sound self worth just let little things like denial vs. deniel roll.
I sure hope it made you feel better inside to put me in my place.

Why is it that certain people think the government can spend other people’s money better than they can do it themselves? The problem with government for the past +60 years has not been tax rates, it HAS ALWAYS BEEN SPENDING.

I have posted the link many times over the years, our government has SPENT more than it took in since the late 1950's when the highest tax rates were over 90%. The claim that raising taxes will fix anything is a faux claim. The reason it is fake, spending is NEVER fixed. The recent creation of another massive entitlement program, obamacare, will further add to the spending levels.

Until voters step away from the spin provided by both parties and look at the publicly available numbers and then DEMAND elected officials fix the problems (spending), we will soon be just like Greece and Spain.

Sadly many refuse to accept the real picture. Our current debt level is LARGER than our nation’s economy. That means we OWE more money than every person, business, fund, bank, widget maker create/earn in one year. If our nation ONLY paid the debt and NOTHING else, it would take over 5 years to pay it off. How long would it take to pay off your debts if you used all your money just for that?

Since we have eclipsed this mark, 100% debt to GDP, the odds against getting out of trouble is much harder.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-14...

10 years of tax cuts for the job creators and years of republican trickle down economics. Where are the jobs ? Millionaires and their businesses pay less and less in taxes year after year. Where are the jobs ? Doing the same thing we have been doing is crazy. Where are the jobs? No more lies, where are the jobs?

billnewbie, may I suggest anger management class?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
Even before the recession, the rate was about 10% lower than 35%.

35% corporate rate on the books, but only a 12% rate is what is being paid in the US.

Did they? 11 tax raises for Reagan, one was the largest pecetime raise in US history in 1982. I`m not an economist, and probably neither are 99% of the posters on here. Revenue goes up unless there is a depression/recession, and no one can prove tax cuts, or raises, raise revenue by themselves. CBO has said the Bush cuts cost the government $2.3 trillion over 10 years. CBO has said Obama has cut taxes $2.2 trillion over 10 years. Where is the increased revenue? Tax rates as of 2009 were the lowest in 30 years, CBO. At best, tax cuts return only 25% of the cuts. Can you find a credible economist that says revenue increases over what the cuts cost? Not a politician or pundit, an economist. What I cited had conservative economists saying it doesn`t work that way.

LOL pharm, where would you have your business? #1 country at 40% corporate tax rate or #2 at 13% tax rate.
I'd take my business and hire all my tax paying employees in country #2 which isn't America.

Trickle down the tax code and stream up the revenue. Dah!

The meaning of the name Deniel is 'God is my judge'.
Not you poobah.

pharm, how do you explain JFK and Reagan then doing just that?

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/0...
No credible economist, including those in the Bush administration, has ever believed that tax cuts raise more revenue than they lose.

hahah, searching the bottom of the barrel now poobah

The word is spelled denial, not deniel.

No, I'm not Bowlgal. I was just correcting your error.

poobah, do you care really how the phrase came about or are you also in deniel over Reagan's monumental victory over Mondale?
It is true, the left does try to rewrite history.
It's a shame that more Republicans in Washington don't believe in Conservatism either.
JFK practiced "trickle down" too.
He cut taxes and raised the revenue 11% and Reagan 43%.
Taking less taxes has proven that you actually gain more revenue due to the increase in tax payers.
We need to get back to that model and not less tax payers giving more.

California and liberism - not only do they spend all of your money, they don't pay back the debt either.
America under Obama just gets to print more.

Sorry poobah, turn the liberal channel.
Reagan was the best modern day President in history. Gov Walker and Wisconsin is a perfect example of conservative values. California and Illinois is what you see from liberals. And yet another California town (the entire town) run by liberals filing Chapter 9.
Carter was a flop and Obama is his second term. Flop plop #2.

kaysbrew said, "Right on bowlgal! Reagan won in two landslides because it's an economy we live in."

Yes, we lived in it alright and we enjoyed the prosperity handed to Reagan by previous administrations and Congresses reducing our debt as a percentage of GDP. Many of us warned about the dangers and few then listened. Reagan was handed an opportunity to cash in on the hard work of prior administrations and Congresses and he did just that by providing huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

We didn't notice the effects during his 8 years in office because we, as a nation, were still comparatively wealthy and had low debt as a percentage of GDP ratios at the time. But the upward slope of the debt as a percentage of GDP caused by Reagan's trickle-down economic policies has pretty much gone unchecked (with the exception of the work of Clinton).

If you want to see the effect of Reagan's trickle-down economics on later generations, take a look at this chart: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Fed... ]

You, your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are now paying for the short-lived glory days of Reagan's trickle-down policies.

poobah
is that really all you have left in the tank?

Call it what your will, it's still better then the trickle down poverty of Obamanomics.

Bowlgal said, ""trickle down" was a media phase..."

Time for a history lesson on the etymology and use of "trickle-down."

'The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."' [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-dow... ]

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director.

Right on bowlgal! Reagan won in two landslides because it's an economy we live in.
Nobody would ever call either Bush President conservative and unfortunately we can't call Romney conservative either. But he's a hill of a lot better then what's biting us in the butt now.
We felt it going to the polls in 2010 and 2012 hasn't changed our minds.

"trickle down" was a media phase because it did work and Reagan was a Republican. That is not suppose to happen.
It's the economy people could feel and know it was working to a landslide victory for a Reagan second term.
Just like Carter then Obama now - we can feel the failure.

Trickle down doesn't work. If it did, where are all the jobs from Bush II? Austerity fails until government bails it out. Reagan raised taxes 11 times. He would be too liberal for today's Republicans.

Courtesy class, Gazettefan? It didn't do you any good!

vat..I did not read one sentence in the link you provided that implied it was because of Obama's anti business policies. As a matter of fact over 1/4 of those surveyed blamed weak sales. Lot of good all of that supply is doing us. I digress...Obama is actually the opposite of what you implied. He has passed the following to help small business:
1. Extension of Enhanced Small Business Expensing (Sec. 1202, Page 221).
2. 5-Year Carryback of Net Operating Losses for Small Businesses (Sec. 1211, Page 221).
3. Extension of Bonus Depreciation (Sec. 1201, Page 220).
Exclusion of 75% of Small Business Capital Gains from Taxes (Sec. 1241, Page 228).
5. Temporary Small Business Estimated Tax Payment Relief (Sec. 1212, Page 222).
6. Temporary Reduction of S Corporation Built-In Gains Holding Period from 10 Years to 7 Years (Sec. 1251, Page 228).
7. Advanced Energy Investment Credit (Sec. 1302, Page 231).
8. Tax Credits for Alternative Refueling Property (Sec. 1123, Page 211).
9. Work Opportunity Tax Credits for Hiring Unemployed Veterans and Disconnected Youth (Sec. 1221, Page 223).
10. Delayed Recognition of Certain Cancellation of Debt Income (Sec. 1231, Page 224).
11. Election to Accelerate Recognition of Historic AMT/R&D Credits (Sec. 1201, Page 220).

On the other hand:
HR 5297 - Small Business Lending Fund and Tax Law Amendments. Paul Ryan voted No
https://votesmart.org/bill/11816/32155/2...

RAF, may I suggest courtesy class?

Many, many years of so called trickle-down economics. Where has it gotten us? In the hole!

I find it interesting that the author of this article, Arthur Herman, would suggest that Obama give trickle-down Reaganomics "a shot" when Reagan's own vice president, George Bush, referred to it as a "voodoo economic policy" and Willard Mitt Romney has said, "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

Wow - 9 comments in a row removed for RAF. Careful - it would be a shame to get kicked off the site just before you hit the big 10K.

westorbust Jul 10, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
So you are using someone elses opinion to justify your statement?
("...2010/08/01/opinion")

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post...

Top 0.1% earners since 1970 have seen a 385% rise in income. The bottom 90% have seen a -1% drop in income. Supply side works for the people it's designed to work for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinio...

Reagan's Top Economist Says GOP Misled the U.S. and Tanked the Economy

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/09/mi...

I wonder, given the explosion of technology that has taken over our lives and work places, if it is more to blame for long term job loss than politicians.

And RetiredNewbie has 23 posts, with only 3 on-topic.

RetiredNewbie, please try to stay on-topic, which is "Pro: Supply-side economics worked wonders for Reagan; Obama should give it a shot."

And the trolling of the poo_koch continues...

Analertcitizen, perhaps you haven't always been as alert as you are now. You still seem to miss the significance of Ross Perot's candidacy and why it was so significant. Bush41 didn't lose the election solely due to the recession.

As for my being condescending, that's only your perception. Whenever there are strong disagreements of opinion, one side or the other may think that, perhaps both. As for my assumption of your age, that was indeed my misperception based on what I still perceive as your erroneous interpretation of the past.

Poobah, you sow what you reap. If you want someone else to stop name calling, lead by example. As for why I jumped in on the post count, I thought it absurd for you to raise the issue considering how often I see your posts. Just as is your name calling complaint.

More goal post moving poo_koch? Cornered over your own tripe on number of comments you want to walk out on the ledge on the topic of civility....do you ever think these things through before typing.

@billnewbie- Thank you for thinking that I am a " youngster" and condescending to me as such. I have been an adult since Kennedy was President and I too know what was happening in the various time periods. I liked Reagan and Bush, not Clinton so much until after the fact and actually voted for Bush43 until his second term. The Republican Party doesn't even resemble the old GOP. Reagan was good only for his specific period of time, not for the long haul. The recession hit Bush41 and history indicates that Clinton did a stupendous job pulling it all together. Bush43 cronies undid the good. I voted for Obama in 2008 and will again. I think(:

Thank you for the apology, billnewbie. You've again brought up the pace of comments (as though this is a foot race you're handicapping) and this now makes several times you've commented about this.

Why aren't you as equally, if not more, concerned and vociferous with the other person's name calling, incivility and accusations which are much more egregious than mentioning the number of comments they have made?

billnewbie, what about the monster budget deficit Reagan caused? Can you put a biblical spin on that to make it sound like something good? Like how you spin biblical ethnic cleansing and abuse of women and children.

Poobah, you say you haven't posted using more than one name? Ok, I'll accept your word for that and retract and apologize for the part where I suggested you did. That still leaves the fact that you've posted nearly 4000 times over the last year. That's about 10 times a day. Yet you castigated RetiredAirForce for an average of 6 per day over 4 1/2 years and a hair under 9 a day over the last year. Like I said. That's the pot calling the kettle black. Bob and weave all you like, the numbers don't lie.

Analertcitizen, you remind me of something I saw recently on the NFL Network. They were doing a top ten show about quarterbacks of the '80's. Dave Krieg was named 7th. Some of the sportscasters that were interviewed had never heard of him, even questioning that he'd been in the NFL. The point is that when your knowledge of history depends on books or documentaries, you get the filtered version. The author tells you what he thinks it really was like then. I'm old enough that I lived those years in my adulthood. I know who David Krieg is without refering to an "expert", just as I know Bush41 and Reagan.

The Democrats pronounced "Reaganomics" a failure even before he took office and have held to that bit of propaganda ever since. In politics, it's deadly to admit you were ever wrong. The Democrats know this as well as anyone. "Reaganomics" was a stunning success. The Democrats denied, and continue to deny this in spite of the historical record.

Have you ever heard the term "Voodoo Economics"? It derisively refers to "Reaganomics". Bush41 was the source of that term. He coined it in the 1980 Presidential election campaign while he was still running against Reagan for the Republican nomination. The Demcrats adopted it for their own, until it no longer worked when they then adopted "Trickle-Down" as their new and improved derisive term for "Reaganomics". Bush41 claimed to have been a convert to "Reaganomics, but his record proved otherwise. His tax increases contributed to that rather mild recession you referred to. Combined with his broken tax pledge, it was clear to the electorate that there was little difference between voting for Bush41 and Bill Clinton. That's why so many voted for Ross Perot.

No, I much prefer RetiredNewbie. It has a nice ring to it.

Bob and weave, Poobah. Bob and weave.

billnewbie, your rant about using multiple usernames, something I've never done, sounds an awful lot like RetiredAirForce's rants.

RetiredNewbie... who would have guessed?

@Billnewbie- Bush lost because a recession hit the country due to the policies of Reagan not because the democrats shouted, " See, he broke his promise". His approval rating was at 94% after the Kuwait conflict. He dropped from 94% approval to losing. Nothing like a deep recession to keep a candidate from winning.

Analertcitizen, surely you see my point about how Bush41 was sandbagged by the Democrats over the tax hike. He was being bi-partisan, working with the Democrats. Creating new spending an acquiescing over tax increases. And before the ink on his signature was dry, the Democrats were shouting "See, he broke his promise! He can't be trusted!" And they rode that mantra to victory in November 1992. If Bush41 had stayed the Reagan course, resisted compromise with the tax and spenders, he would have won re-election. Instead, he wanted to look like the noble compromiser, and got thoroughly burned for it. The Democrats recognized his ambition and played him like a fiddle. That's why I call him a pushover.

Poobah said " I see we have a whole chorus (well, at least a duet) of conservatives concerned with the number of comments now." Who was it that started this little side show? Wasn't it you Pot...er I mean Poobah? And just how many other names have you been posting under? Shouldn't we count those as well. Isn't that the reason why, for three years you hardly used the Poobah moniker at all, and then suddenly nearly 4000 posts in one Poobah year. You must have been posting under at least one other name that was shut down for its repulsive content, weren't you? I wonder, did you read the Gazette's terms of use? I suppose, like most liberals, rules don't apply to you since your ends justify your means.

typical poo_koch troll, just more deflection.

Better stay indoors and out of the heat, RetiredAirForce. Or maybe you need to clean your eyeglasses. Whatever the cause of your inability to see the chart clearly, maybe you want someone to help explain the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II increases for you. Particularly the Reagan years.

And why are you still commenting on debt as a percentage of GDP when you admonished others for discussing it for being off-topic? Oh my! 9,744 comments. Busy, busy, busy.

LOL using the poo_koch latest "bar" it is interesting how she ignores that in under 4 years her current president has increased the rate by ~20%, more than any other republican administration in history; eclipsed only by other dem administrations. The worst part of this increase it was accomplished without any significant gain in economic indicators like jobs or revenue.

@billnewbie- I'm surprised that you would categorize Bush 41 as a " pushover" because he was a centrist. He was/is a statesman that worked well with people. Ronald Reagan was a
"centrist" on non-fiscal issues and one would never categorize him as a
"pushover". For that matter, right now, Jeb Bush is leaning toward the center. If one is not crazy right wing, it doesn't mean they are weak. They are just stronger and more self assured than some of the current
politicians.

Debt as a percentage of GDP by president: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Fed... ]

A very nice graph of debt as a percentage of GDP by president. Every Republican administration since Ford has significantly increased debt as a percentage of GDP. Not the same can be said of Democrat administrations, going all the way back to the end of World War II. Reagan/Bush I more than doubled it. Bush II increased the ratio by almost 30%. Bush II used 9/11 as cart blanche to go on his borrowing frenzy to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bailouts for his Wall Street buddies, leaving our economy in a shambles for Obama.

Take one look at the chart and it's clear why conservatives don't like talking about debt as a percentage of GDP. Reagonmics have never worked.

RetiredAirForce: 9,736 comments

poobah: 4,685 comments

Here is another perfect example of poo_koch, the troll, deflecting away from issues. She stated "Despite the attempt of conservatives to distract from the article, here again is the simple proof that Reaganomics didn't work". In her deflective attempt she brings up GDP-to-debt ratio. Nothing in the article mentioned this. Why then does she? Simple, not just her, but the reason. She can't dispute the growth in jobs, revenue gains, or other economic indicators, so she deflects to a bench mark that fits her agenda; not something part of the story.

LOL the poo_koch troll is all a flutter over being called out for her being a hypocrite; "I see we have a whole chorus (well, at least a duet) of conservatives concerned with the number of comments now." In typical poo_koch troll style first deflect then circular logic, then to moving the goal posts, and followed shortly by a claim to giving others the last word after getting further driven into a corner she just uttered this little gem " If one year is more representative than ten months, then the whole set is surely the most representative". See the problem is she was caught in more trollish nonsense over post numbers. When shown she has indeed surpassed people she criticized for the past year the goal posts are moved. The fact is the poo_koch troll is caught once again, this time for complaining about others for something she is doing more of; typical liberal.

You forgot to mention we need to quit borrowing from foreign countries. I saw on ABC last year a view inside the treasury auction room. They were borrowing foreign money at a rate of $28 billion every three days.

Despite the attempt of conservatives to distract from the article, here again is the simple proof that Reaganomics didn't work and is one of the root causes of the economic crises handed to Obama.

Debt as a percentage of GDP during presidential terms: Reagan/Bush I, 33.3% to 65.9% - a 97.9% increase; Clinton, 65.9% to 57.7% Bush II, 57.7% to 74.1% - a 28.4% increase; Obama, 74.1% to 99.7% - a 34.5% increase.

Our debt problems won't start to be reversed in earnest until military spending is reduced by at least $500 billion per year to bring our spending in line with the military spending of Russia and China combined. Just as the Soviet Union bankrupted itself spending on its military, so shall the United States unless we make significant cuts to military spending.

billnewbie said, "I made my recount for a year instead of 10 months. I thought that would be a more representative comparison."

I see we have a whole chorus (well, at least a duet) of conservatives concerned with the number of comments now. If one year is more representative than ten months, then the whole set is surely the most representative you can get, right, billnewbie?

RetiredAirForce: 9,731 comments in 1,642 days (5.9 comments per day)

poobah: 4,683 comments in 1,608 days (2.9 comments per day)

I made my recount for a year instead of 10 months. I thought that would be a more representative comparison.

So Poobah, why does the pot call the kettle black?

You asked for it, Poobah, You got it.
RetiredAirForce has posted approx. 3200 times since July 9th, 2011. (His archive shows a post on that date on page 319 as of now)
Poobah has posted approx. 3605 times since then. (His archive shows a post on July 11th, 2011 and on July 7th, 2011 on page 359 as of now)

The archive shows 10 posts per page, starting with the newest, and the first page is not numbered.

Analertcitizen, be cautious of TV documentaries. The one you mentioned, but didn't name, called Bush41 a centrist. I'd say he was a bit left of center and as such, a pushover. He seemed to want to be so bi-partisan that he let the Democrats sandbag him more than once. Not only did he sign on for some spending programs that Reagan would have vetoed, he also bought into the idea that a tax increase was needed both to pay for that new spending and as a tool to apply social justice. Simply put, he didn't raise taxes because "Reaganomics" forced him to, he raised them because he, like the Democrats, wanted to spend more money. On the other hand, the Democrats only cooperated with him so that they could pass a few tax and spend bills and then crow as loudly as possible about Bush41's breaking of the " NO NEW TAXES" pledge. As such, he made a fool of himself, and he deserved to lose his re-election bid. If he had stayed true to "Reaganomics" The Clinton phenomenon would have never gotten to Washington.

Excuse me, 40 months of unemployment over 8%.

It's time to save our Country.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...
The Great Depression in the 1930s, real annual GDP growth was 1.3 percent — just 0.2 percent less than under Obama.
48 months of unemployment over 8%.
It's no mystery Obama is in trouble, and so is America

LOL, a simple review of the poo_koch troll's hypocracy parade. She stated the following " you reached is that I'm "concerned" about the number of your comments", so lets look at the facts.

Here is a small sampling of her lowlights.
-"there you have the basis for the previous 9,722 comments."
-"Make that Mr. 9,720 Comments.
-"Mr. 9,718 Comments"

The only thing she has shown is her unending desire to act like an internet-troll and deflect. She has shown be a great member of her left wing circus side show.

RetiredAirForce, you spent the time to count ten months worth of your comments and count ten months worth of my comments and the conclusion you reached is that I'm "concerned" about the number of your comments. I demand a recount!

Poor poo_koch troll. If you are so "concerned" on how many times I have posted why have you posted more in the last 10 months? You have clearly shown to be not just another left wing fringe circus participant you are also another of their many hypocrites.

Midnite_Ride, you apparently went to the RetiredAirForce School of Economics -- ignoring inflation and measuring debt in absolute terms instead of as a percentage of GDP as any credible economist would do.

You are correct that Reagan TRIPLED the national debt in just eight years in absolute dollars, and he doubled the debt as a percentage of GDP.

You're not right about Clinton. As RetiredAirForce will tell you, Clinton ADDED to the debt every year in office, but as RetiredAirForce won't tell you, he REDUCED the debt as a percentage of GDP.

So here's the numbers for debt as a percentage of GDP during presidential terms: Reagan/Bush I, 33.3% to 65.9% - a 97.9% increase; Clinton, 65.9% to 57.7% Bush II, 57.7% to 74.1% - a 28.4% increase; Obama, 74.1% to 99.7% - a 34.5% increase.

So much for trickle-down Reaganomics!

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2...

Under President Ronald Reagan: $935 billion to $2.8 trillion

Obama is nearly twice as high in three years as Reagan over all 8 year team. All this because of deals he worked out with congress. Reagan was able to raise the revenue 43% with lower taxes, However, the Democrats spent it faster then it was coming in. Reagan was quoted as saying he would never do that again. ---trust Democrats to keep their words of less spending.
Increased debt (spending) also came with a Democrat congress.
When did you have less spending, Debt? A 6 year Republican Congress under Clinton.

RetiredAirForce's Comment #9,723: "Damn the reality, stick to the party message"

And there you have the basis for the previous 9,722 comments.

OK, I'm puzzled.
How can the same people blame the first 3 years of the Reagan administration on Ronald Reagan (with a Democratic house and Senate) yet blame the entire 4 years of Obama on GW Busch? Keep in mind that Obama had a Democratic house and senate for his first 2 years.
.

TCB's quote July 6 @5:15pm may answer the question, "one devoid of even an infants level of understanding of macro economics..."

from link to US Census report: "The South had a disproportionately large number of counties with high income
inequality, while counties in the Midwest had lower levels of income inequality.3 Specifically, 32 percent of the 1,423 counties in the South had Gini indexes ranking among the top fifth of all 3,143 U.S. counties. By contrast, 31 percent of the 1,055 counties in the Midwest had Gini indexes in the bottom fifth (Table 1)."

.

I have said it before, no unions in the South, much lower quality of life. The mid-west, WI particularly, is a much more pleasant place to grow an economy. Without unions to negotiate fair wage expectations and working conditions, business owners focus on their profits only. Diane Hendricks wants a right to work state for the sole purpose of increasing profits for herself. I've watched this thinking at work for years.

.

Southern businesses depend on tourists with more income to buy their goods. The majority of the local population cannot afford to purchase non essentials.

I CAN NOT TAKE 4 MORE YEARS OF BLAIMING BUSH!!!

Damn the reality, stick to the party message; or is that like a religion?

nail on the head Nelle... the "game" is so out of hand..... Obama could favor everything the right wing wackos want now and they would condemn it all in less than a day...

Supply-side economics is a crock, but if Obama was for it, you could bet your house that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Paul Ryan would be against it.

TCB -
1. Al Gore was a terrible candidate. People supported Nader because they wanted an alternative. If he hadn't been on the ballot they would have voted for someone else that wasn't Al Gore.
2. You can't assume that Nader voters would have gone for Gore in Nader's absence. Most of them when polled said they would NOT have voted for Gore.
3. When ALL the votes were actually finally counted (after the election and lawsuits were over) Gore won Florida.
4. There were so many irregularities in counting the ballots, it would have made Kathy Nickolaus blush.
5. Even if you believe that Bush beat Gore by 500 votes in FL, there were other 3rd party candidates who got more than 500 votes.
6. Nader got 97,000 votes compared to Gore and Bush's 2.9 million (each). There were 4 other 3rd party candidates that got well over 500 votes. Even "Other" got 3,000 votes. Why not blame John Hagelin or Howard Phillips for Gore's loss? If 537 of those voters had gone with Gore he would have won also. Of course it looks funny to blame "Other" for your election loss.

Bottom line is if Gore had been a better candidate, he wouldn't have driven voters to Nader or other candidates. You can blame Nader if you want and it makes a nice story (and will go down in history that way) but it doesn't stand up to the facts.

Supply side economics does not work for the simple fact that if there is no demand it doesn't matter how inexpensive an item can be purchased for, if people have no descrectionary spending money there will be no demand. I don't care if they price a Maytag French Door frig at $100 there are many more people, who even if they needed a frig, could not buy it...no demand. People who are unemployed or under employed or who have taken huge wage cuts cannot create demand. Until corps. are willing to share the wealth with their employees by paying a living wage and restoring the middle class, there will be no demand. No middle class , no demand. Since 1967, U.S. household income inequality has grown 18 percent
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsb...
Just tonight on the news, a segment where a CEO of a company worked one day after the merger with another company and was given a 45 million dollar severence package. Just imagine if that 45 million had been divided among the employees, in the way of increased wages, how much money would be circulating in the economy. No, instead it is in one persons financial portfolio.

DTB,

If Ralph Nader had not been on the ballet in 2000, Al Gore wins Florida and Presidency. Even though Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee...yes I agree with you that Al Gore is a putz and a loser but Ralph Nader took Florida's 25 electoral college votes and gave it to Bush. You might recall that Bush beat Gore by less than 600 votes and Nader had at least 50000 votes.

Just like Ralph Nader destroyed the Al Gore campaign in 2000.

More lies from the right. Al Gore destroyed the Al Gore campaign in 2000.

@TCB_ Actually, in part you're right in that Reaganomics worked for that specific period of time ( the 80's). However, the policies failed within a few years while Bush was President and Clinton faced a deficit going into his Presidency. The economy was not fine in the early 90's. It didn't get fine until the 2nd Clinton term. The things Clinton did from about 1995 to 2000 created the ecomonmy of the 90's that extended into the 2000's. The things Bush did created the mess we are still trying to get under control. This article suggests that Obama should do what Reagan did, and, maybe he should if he simply wants a short term fix. But it is not sustainable over the long term.

anale,

"Read my lips no new taxes" and Ross Perot. WHile perot did not garner a single electoral college vote, he was able to take votes from HW Bush, which allowed CLinton to win with a plurality of the vote.

Just like Ralph Nader destroyed the Al Gore campaign in 2000.

DTB,

The Reagan economic policies produced 25 years of unmatched economic prosperity. Was life perfect? No. But only a complete idiot, one devoid of even an infants level of understanding of macro economics claim that Reagan made things worse-for a short period of time-yes-monetary changes were necessary, but the next 25 years the economic growth that the USA experienced has was unmatched in all of human history.

MR - not in graphic format but there are charts:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

@billnewbie- Your post. " ...The historical fact is that Reagan's policies worked. In fact, they worked very well for many years beyond his term. That's why Bush41 was elected President after Reagan." I recently watched a documentary about George Bush's (1) time served as President. The documentary was very complimentary toward Bush, even calling him a true centrist. It went on the say that one of the reasons he " lost' the election in "92 was a direct result of Reagans economic policies. The policies forced Bush to break his promise of " No new taxes" in 1991 and that cost him the election.

Nice try, distractors. I never made comment re: Obama. Check again and you'll see this article is about supply side economics, which was Reagan's baby. Try to stay on topic, as difficult as that may be for you.

And MR, Reagan made things much worse by driving us into a deep recession, so don't prattle on about how it took him 3 years to get us out, the first two years were his doing.

Feel free to rave on however on how he made this country great by negotiating with terrorists, and setting in place the financial deregulation that would take us to where we are today.

He was great at doublespeak, I'll give you that. Going on and on about reducing spending and shrinking government while at the same time increasing debt and enlarging the size and scope of government to previously unseen levels.

dtb, by all means, show us the spending chart between Reagan and Obama. I doubt you'd have enough chart room to measure the massive debt Obama has thrust upon us.

It took Reagan nearly three years to get us out of the worst economy Carter and progressives could give us. The left media at that time labeled it trickle down in usually fashion to belittle the success.
Why has Obama continued to call the economy the worst when it is he who has made it so?
It will take Romney at least three years to fix his mess.

dtb,

Is Reagan president today?

Will the historians write that Reagans 1st term was worse than Obamas?

In 1980, candidate Reagan promised to eliminate the federal deficit in 8 years and balance the budget. In 8 years, he tripled the nation's debt. Nuff said.

gazettefan Jul 6, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
TROLL: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online discussion forum or blog with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Until theres a total overhaul of how our government operates, we're in for a lot more of the same from our politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike! Until they get their hands chopped off from stealing out of the cookie jar, arguments from both sides are absolutely pointless! It doesn't matter which side is in the White House, in control of congress or the senate, neither side will venture too far from their party lines to do the right thing even if that means going against their party. We need politicians that act like bosses! They make decisions for their company (country) for the betterment of the organization (people) even if that means some people will be angry at them, but as long as its good for the majority, the company keeps moving forward to prosper!

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2...
Obama a "supply sider"?

We need less, less government.

fordfan,

I re-read your post-do you think Obama is a supply sider? is this why the economy sucks under Obama?

Talking points is all you got? I thought you were better than that.

Congress passed 8 budgets during Reagan`s terms, for LESS money than he asked for.

http://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/SUP...
Voodoo economics.

gazettefan,

Democrats in congress promised Reagan $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in increased taxes-how did this work out? The Dems did it again with HW Bush.

gazette fan if you were serious about deficits-you would ask yourself how long can the US sustain 1.6 TRILLION in ANNUAL budget deficits under Obama?

The reagan recovery began in November of 1982 and lasted 92 months without a recession until 1990-when the tax increases of the 90 budget stopped it! Obama hasn't signed a budget since he's been in office. Reagan cut income rate rates, cut govt DISCRETIONARY spending, restrained the money supply-stabilizing the dollar and lowering inflation, eliminated price controls on oil and gas exploration-causing a PLUNGE in the price of oil-causing production to soar, creating jobs-building cars and trucks for example-loacally.

Obama increased govt spending-with the needed "stimulus", instead of restraining the monetary supply-Obama has done the opposite-36 months since the recession ENDED-unemployement is still above 8.2% -levels not seen since the Great depression.

But at the end of the day the big difference between Reagan and Obama-Reagan lead and Americans followed. Obama blames Bush and offers no leadership or direction-except higher income taxes and more govt intervention. Jim Carter is without question the worst president in the last 100 years-and Obama is quickly looking more and more like Carter.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/10/...

billnewbie, what about the monster budget deficit Reagan caused? Can you put a biblical spin on that to make it sound like something good? Like how you spin biblical ethnic cleansing and abuse of women and children.

"If supply side economics worked, we would not be in this economic downturn that is so difficult to get out of. If supply side economics worked, we would be at an all time high for employment and GDP. Supply side economics is a proven failed theory."

Huh, you would almost think that Obama is not President. Well, like I always say, being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry!

The historical fact is that Reagan's policies worked. In fact, they worked very well for many years beyond his term. That's why Bush41 was elected President after Reagan. The late '80's economy was the best any of us had ever seen. The electorate wanted it to continue. If it weren't for term limits, Reagan could easily have won another 2 or 3 terms. Were his policies perfect? Of course not. Neither were they the abysmal failure that so many partisan Democrats try to paint them as. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Fordfan, the demand is not there because the job creators are handcuffed by an incompetent and over reaching federal government and the unknown economic impact of obamacare.

westorbust, while I used Janesville as an example, during part of the time from 1985-2006 I lived in 2 other cities (in another state)and could cite similar examples for each. Also the whole country was doing well, stock market rising, Las Vegas doing big business, the cruise industry rolling in money, need I go on?
.
motorman, Stockman is not disagreeing with trickle down but with the way it was handled. You know, hindsight is 20-20.
A quote for you from the article you site,
"Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies."
As I said, this article has been beat to death on another thread.

There is plenty of money currently held by the so called "job creators". The demand is not there as so many demand creators have no money to buy. What is so hard to understand that if supply side economics worked, we would not be in this economic downturn that is so difficult to get out of? If supply side economics worked, we would be at an all time high for employment and GDP. Supply side economics is a proven failed theory.

What we need is an attitude shift in America. We need to recognize and support the fact that the best products are Made in America. We need to recognize that when we invest in the best products, Made in America, we also invest in our neighbors.
.
We love to give corporations excuses for why they unpatriotically sell out America so their salaries can remain in the millions.
.
Corporate CEO's love to complain about the cost of regulation, taxation and salaries/benefits in America. They use that as an excuse to open shot in countries that support horrible working conditions (things this country FOUGHT to fix 100 years ago).
.
They blame the "cost of doing business in America" and we believe them. Meanwhile, executives are making MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars.
.
The average American believes union demands are the problem.
.
We need to change our beliefs and recognize the FACT that these corporations and their executives can still make HUGE profits while providing quality middle-class jobs to our neighbors.
.
If you disagree, and I am wrong that US corporations can not provide middle-class salary/benefits to your neighbors than nothing can be done to fix this mess. If the millions the execs. receive in salary are demanded to the point that environmental regulations, working condition laws, minimum wage, etc... are too expensive we are doomed.
.
Search for American Made products. Make a purchase. There are quality items. Remember, if it costs a little less but reduced unemployment, food stamps, low-income housing, etc... It is a worthwhile investment. Besides, as the greatest country in the world shouldn't what we produce be worth more than what some slum, third-world country produces.
.
Again, look at the corporate salaries and the middle class salaries... now ask, is it working conditions, unions and other regulations causing companies to leave or is it the greed at the top. The very greed that Reagan believed would allow their money to trickle down.
.
If trickle down worked, as the rich was getting richer in recent years the middle-class would be growing. They are, in fact, getting richer but the middle class is getting poorer.
.
BUY MADE IN AMERICA!
too busy to search... start here
americanproductsamericaspride.com
As a customer, I can strongly recommend.

Par for the course from the American Enterprise Institute. Btw, using Janesville as an example of successful supply side economies is missing the mark by a long shot. The main reason Janesville saw the economic success it did was in large part due to the wages and benefits negotiated by the unions. If the region's economy was dependent on wages not including GM, such as Stoughton Trailers or other similar manufacturers, you would have never seen the boom that occurred here.

Motorman@11:16. This bit of misinformation was disected in an earlier thread. Falls under the catagory of a half truth is a whole lie.

Supply side economics is a failed theory for
all but the Rich. It does not work for the majority of the country. It is time to put this fallacy on the scrap heap of history.

From the mid 80's until 2006-2007 Janesville was a prosperous community. Why? There was demand for the products we produced in our factories. The biggest employer GM worked overtime for years on end. Our other factories and the service industry were at full strength. The money earned by these workers trickled throughout the community. Jobs were plentiful and a generation of children went through school with all their needs and wants satisfied.
We went to restaurants, sporting events, 'up north', and purchased things. New stores came to town to fill consumer demand.
Since the economic downturn and the closing of the plant in 2008 we have turned to the Keynesian economic theory favored by the democrats and President Obama.
The result is the present condition of the economy in Janesville.

The problem with supply-side economics is that it takes a bit of truth and attempts to draw conclusions that just don't hold up. To say 'if you build it, they will come', one must believe that people simply spend their money because their is something to be bought. If it is cheap enough, and thus more with in their means, they will buy it.

The same can be said toward demand. Just creating the demand for a product is not enough. People must also be able to afford the things they may want. If they can't, all the demand in the world won't lead to consumption.

Instead, economic growth comes out of an environment where there is sufficient demand for something AND this demand can be met with an adequate supply chain. Look to any of the examples above, and this is easy to see. Yet, each of these products went through a development and delivery cycle that made them successes. This process, in other words marketing, is highly understood and utilized to make those things that are built reach a market that demands them.

All supply-side really says is that the biggest thing need to drive demand is abundance. Perhaps this is why the people that tout it think it will help with investment. What they are really asking for is the government to step in and provide the incentive for investment. They ask for lower interest rates and taxes, which in essence is the same as lowering the cost of investment. To them, this will obviously spur the growth they're looking for by creating the demand through lowered cost.

It's a big step from pointing out the recession of 1982, and saying it was bad times to what you describe TCB. Truth is there was nothing funny or good about it and look where Reagan's voodoo economics has gotten us today. Try not to stretch so much - you'll hurt yourself.

Bill,

DTB longs for the good ole days of 18% mortgages interest rates, 20% inflation, choosing the "moderate ayatollahs" in Iran over the US friend the Shah (which helped foster the current state of affairs in Iran and North Korea. Those were great days in Janesville, right? rampant unemployment at Parker Pen and General Motors....good times under Jim Carter...who wouldn't want to turn back the clock?

Nothing funny about it bill - those were bad times.

The recession of '82??? Now that's funny! Dtb, you obviously weren't trying to make a living during the Jimmy Carter administration.

The result was the recession of 1982 - the worst since the great Depression. And only backing off kept us from falling into a depression.

And let's not forget the S&L scandal which was foreshadowing of 2008 and should have been a lesson in what happens when you deregulate the banking industry. If the lessson had been learned then, the meltdown of 2008 could have (and should have) been avoided. None of the S&Ls got bailed out then.