login
"Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-11-02 10:40 AM in reply to: #4480386 |
Elite  4564    Boise |  Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberalscoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM ...Which can't even keep pace with the number of additional people looking for work, which is why unemployment rose again this morning to 7.9%. And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
I don't know about you, but I'm super excited for the next 4 years of moderate to no growth (possible recession even) we are going to experience under whomever wins. Edited by JoshR 2012-11-02 10:41 AM |
| 2012-11-02 10:50 AM in reply to: #4480396 |
Pro 9391  Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal JoshR - 2012-11-02 10:40 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM ...Which can't even keep pace with the number of additional people looking for work, which is why unemployment rose again this morning to 7.9%. And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling I can say with relative confidence that's true if Obama wins. If Romney wins I say there's a 50/50 shot that things turn around very quickly and the recovery starts to look like what it should have 4 years ago. GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
I don't know about you, but I'm super excited for the next 4 years of moderate to no growth (possible recession even) we are going to experience under whomever wins. |
| 2012-11-02 10:52 AM in reply to: #4480386 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 10:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. The highest unemployment rate since 1980 was in March 1982 when it was 10.8 percent. By the end of 1984, that had dropped to 7.3 percent. It reached 5.3 percent in November 1988. The next time it rose above 8 percent was in February 2009. It peaked at 10 percent in October 2009. It's now at 7.9 percent. |
| 2012-11-02 10:56 AM in reply to: #4480396 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal JoshR - 2012-11-02 10:40 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM ...Which can't even keep pace with the number of additional people looking for work, which is why unemployment rose again this morning to 7.9%. And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
I don't know about you, but I'm super excited for the next 4 years of moderate to no growth (possible recession even) we are going to experience under whomever wins. Many people felt exactly the same way you do in 1980. I remember it very well. All I'll say i, it is amazing what can happen when people (especially those who run businesses, big and small) have confidence and certainty in what the future holds, and people go back to work. In the1980's, we spent the money for an enormous defense build up that resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This time, we can apply the same money toward our deficit and debt. |
| 2012-11-02 11:07 AM in reply to: #4480447 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:56 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 10:40 AM Many people felt exactly the same way you do in 1980. I remember it very well. All I'll say i, it is amazing what can happen when people (especially those who run businesses, big and small) have confidence and certainty in what the future holds, and people go back to work. In the1980's, we spent the money for an enormous defense build up that resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This time, we can apply the same money toward our deficit and debt. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM ...Which can't even keep pace with the number of additional people looking for work, which is why unemployment rose again this morning to 7.9%. And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
I don't know about you, but I'm super excited for the next 4 years of moderate to no growth (possible recession even) we are going to experience under whomever wins. Personally, I don't believe that will stimulate the economy (it needs to be done, but it won't be good for our country). Reducing debt and deficit does not create jobs. Look to Europe. All of the countries implementing austerity are just going into deeper recessions. I don't believe Romney would even have the chance to implement that because congress wouldn't pass it. I predict his tax cut will go through, won't be revenue neutral, spending won't be touched. This will just drive up our debt/deficit even more and at the end of the next 4 years, we'll be that much closer to our economy collapsing under the debt (assuming Romney wins, which neither of us are projecting). Edited by JoshR 2012-11-02 11:10 AM |
| 2012-11-02 11:10 AM in reply to: #4480473 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal JoshR - 2012-11-02 11:07 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:56 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 10:40 AM Many people felt exactly the same way you do in 1980. I remember it very well. All I'll say i, it is amazing what can happen when people (especially those who run businesses, big and small) have confidence and certainty in what the future holds, and people go back to work. In the1980's, we spent the money for an enormous defense build up that resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This time, we can apply the same money toward our deficit and debt. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM ...Which can't even keep pace with the number of additional people looking for work, which is why unemployment rose again this morning to 7.9%. And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
I don't know about you, but I'm super excited for the next 4 years of moderate to no growth (possible recession even) we are going to experience under whomever wins. Personally, I don't believe that will stimulate the economy (it needs to be done, but it won't be good for our country). Reducing debt and deficit does not create jobs. Look to Europe. All of the countries implementing austerity are just going into deeper recessions. I don't believe Romney would even have the chance to implement that because congress wouldn't pass it. I predict his tax cut will go through, won't be revenue neutral, spending won't be touched. This will just drive up our debt/deficit even more and at the end of the next 4 years, we'll be that much closer to our economy collapsing under the debt. Yes, I understand your point of view. I just don't agree with it. As I've said, I've lived through all this before and have seen too much evidence to the contrary. |
| 2012-11-02 11:16 AM in reply to: #4480484 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 10:10 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 11:07 AM Yes, I understand your point of view. I just don't agree with it. As I've said, I've lived through all this before and have seen too much evidence to the contrary. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:56 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 10:40 AM Many people felt exactly the same way you do in 1980. I remember it very well. All I'll say i, it is amazing what can happen when people (especially those who run businesses, big and small) have confidence and certainty in what the future holds, and people go back to work. In the1980's, we spent the money for an enormous defense build up that resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This time, we can apply the same money toward our deficit and debt. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM ...Which can't even keep pace with the number of additional people looking for work, which is why unemployment rose again this morning to 7.9%. And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
I don't know about you, but I'm super excited for the next 4 years of moderate to no growth (possible recession even) we are going to experience under whomever wins. Personally, I don't believe that will stimulate the economy (it needs to be done, but it won't be good for our country). Reducing debt and deficit does not create jobs. Look to Europe. All of the countries implementing austerity are just going into deeper recessions. I don't believe Romney would even have the chance to implement that because congress wouldn't pass it. I predict his tax cut will go through, won't be revenue neutral, spending won't be touched. This will just drive up our debt/deficit even more and at the end of the next 4 years, we'll be that much closer to our economy collapsing under the debt. I think that our main differences are from the era we grew up in. You grew up with Regan. I grew up with Bush the 2nd. I believe our government is beholden, not to the American people, but to the people who fund their campaigns. Voting for either D or R only helps keep them in charge and taking bribes, while the country goes down in flames around them. |
| 2012-11-02 11:29 AM in reply to: #4480494 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal JoshR - 2012-11-02 11:16 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 10:10 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 11:07 AM Yes, I understand your point of view. I just don't agree with it. As I've said, I've lived through all this before and have seen too much evidence to the contrary. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:56 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 10:40 AM Many people felt exactly the same way you do in 1980. I remember it very well. All I'll say i, it is amazing what can happen when people (especially those who run businesses, big and small) have confidence and certainty in what the future holds, and people go back to work. In the1980's, we spent the money for an enormous defense build up that resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This time, we can apply the same money toward our deficit and debt. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM ...Which can't even keep pace with the number of additional people looking for work, which is why unemployment rose again this morning to 7.9%. And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
I don't know about you, but I'm super excited for the next 4 years of moderate to no growth (possible recession even) we are going to experience under whomever wins. Personally, I don't believe that will stimulate the economy (it needs to be done, but it won't be good for our country). Reducing debt and deficit does not create jobs. Look to Europe. All of the countries implementing austerity are just going into deeper recessions. I don't believe Romney would even have the chance to implement that because congress wouldn't pass it. I predict his tax cut will go through, won't be revenue neutral, spending won't be touched. This will just drive up our debt/deficit even more and at the end of the next 4 years, we'll be that much closer to our economy collapsing under the debt. I think that our main differences are from the era we grew up in. You grew up with Regan. I grew up with Bush the 2nd. I believe our government is beholden, not to the American people, but to the people who fund their campaigns. Voting for either D or R only helps keep them in charge and taking bribes, while the country goes down in flames around them. Tell you what. IF Romney/Ryan are elected and Republicans also take the Senate, and we have not seen substantial economic progress in three years, I will not just support Gary Johnson or your choice of third-party candidate, I will actively work for them. |
| 2012-11-02 11:58 AM in reply to: #4480516 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: "Republicans" Explain Romney's plan to a liberal scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 10:29 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 11:16 AM Tell you what. IF Romney/Ryan are elected and Republicans also take the Senate, and we have not seen substantial economic progress in three years, I will not just support Gary Johnson or your choice of third-party candidate, I will actively work for them. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 10:10 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 11:07 AM Yes, I understand your point of view. I just don't agree with it. As I've said, I've lived through all this before and have seen too much evidence to the contrary. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:56 AM JoshR - 2012-11-02 10:40 AM Many people felt exactly the same way you do in 1980. I remember it very well. All I'll say i, it is amazing what can happen when people (especially those who run businesses, big and small) have confidence and certainty in what the future holds, and people go back to work. In the1980's, we spent the money for an enormous defense build up that resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This time, we can apply the same money toward our deficit and debt. scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:34 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 10:13 AM ...Which can't even keep pace with the number of additional people looking for work, which is why unemployment rose again this morning to 7.9%. And, of course, we're not even including the people who have just given up looking for work, and who are underemployed, which puts the "real" unemployment rate at 15%+. Quite a contrast to the real recovery we experienced under Reagan, when unemployment went to 5.4%. Sorry, the big government plan simply doesn't work, either for employment of the deficit/debt. NXS - 2012-11-02 10:05 AM crowny2 - 2012-11-02 9:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-11-02 9:17 AM pga_mike - 2012-11-02 9:08 AM Care to compare/contrast Reagan's approach with Carter's in re-starting the economy? The unemployment rate? Economic growth? Like Obama, Carter spent four years trying to get things going until he simply ran out of ideas and had nothing to show for his efforts. At that time, people firmly believed America had peaked and was in certain decline. Sound familiar? scoobysdad - 2012-11-01 11:25 AM ... or history. We've been here and done this all before. Guess what? It worked. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-... Thank you this was the article I was looking for all day. edited for spelling GNP went up with Reagan. But this was the beginning of the separation of the wealthiest incomes from the poorest in the US. It NEVER trickled down. No. I would say that Obama has spent 4 years stopping the decline and has actually reversed it, albeit slowly. Yep and number of people on food stamps proves it! And so does the another straight month of added jobs. I believe 31st straight month.
I don't know about you, but I'm super excited for the next 4 years of moderate to no growth (possible recession even) we are going to experience under whomever wins. Personally, I don't believe that will stimulate the economy (it needs to be done, but it won't be good for our country). Reducing debt and deficit does not create jobs. Look to Europe. All of the countries implementing austerity are just going into deeper recessions. I don't believe Romney would even have the chance to implement that because congress wouldn't pass it. I predict his tax cut will go through, won't be revenue neutral, spending won't be touched. This will just drive up our debt/deficit even more and at the end of the next 4 years, we'll be that much closer to our economy collapsing under the debt. I think that our main differences are from the era we grew up in. You grew up with Regan. I grew up with Bush the 2nd. I believe our government is beholden, not to the American people, but to the people who fund their campaigns. Voting for either D or R only helps keep them in charge and taking bribes, while the country goes down in flames around them. If they do manage to turn the economy around, I'd definitely vote for them. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK