from debate police to ass police...so you want to divide the opposition into commies and fascists...ok
Some really horrible things in history have been really good for the economy..imperialism for example...conquer people, enslave them and make them work for free. The GNP is not guilt free. Habitat for Humanity is not generating huge profits...
Good move! There we can argue about the value of tanking for the lottery as opposed to getting our young players playoff experience
Unemployment rate doesn't mean so much when the active workforce has shrunk by many millions. Those many millions don't get counted as unemployed, even though they are. Instead they're on disability and foodstamps. Obama is the foodstamp president. We didn't bail out banks in the 1970s, true. They just failed. The bigger issue was with the S&Ls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis The relatively greater concentration of S&L lending in mortgages, coupled with a reliance on deposits with short maturities for their funding, made savings institutions especially vulnerable to increases in interest rates. As inflation accelerated and interest rates began to rise rapidly in the late 1970s, many S&Ls began to suffer extensive losses. The rates they had to pay to attract deposits rose sharply, but the amount they earned on long-term, fixed-rate mortgages did not change. Losses began to mount.[7] This led to a regulatory response of forbearance, which is arguably the cause to the symptoms and causes found below. To be clear, it was the practice and enabling of policy that is the cause to the turmoil that the S&L market experienced. Many insolvent thrifts were allowed to remain open, and their financial problems only worsened over time. Moreover, capital standards were reduced both by legislation and by decisions taken by regulators. Federally chartered S&Ls were granted the authority to make new (and ultimately riskier) loans other than residential mortgages
Trickle down government is an utter failure. For the price of 10s of $trillions, we have nothing to show for it except for big debt payments.
Nice dodge... The argument was the economy was worse when Obama took office than Reagan. Neither you or Dviss supported this argument
I guess we have a difference of opinion as to what "control" means. I was referring to the fact that the Democrats had majorities in both houses. You are using the term to mean having a super-majority that can override any filibuster or veto. It makes no difference to my argument either way. Both parties have put partisan hackery above the best interests of the country and have created such a polarized environment that gridlock is the new norm. If it were up to me, I'd toss the lot of them out and only elect candidates who possess the good sense to understand that sometimes you have to give something to get something. The 112 number that Democrats like to throw around in these discussions about how evil and obstructionists the Republicans were in Obama's first term is, like most partisan talking points, bogus. From Wikipedia:
The details are true. We dealt with moderate Iranians. i remember that on the news at the time, it was rumored the Ayatollah was dead and there was infighting to see who'd take over. If there weren't such a mess made of Iran by Carter and the resistance to Reagan's overtures to make peace with a moderate led Iran, we might not be needing some nuke deal with militant extremists.
I'm not playing dodge ball but if you actually paid attention, I said it's a collective problem that spans several administrations. You are obsessed with your bipartisan definitions mags. I can agree with dviss or anyone without standing on one side of your wall..I can also disagree with you without being your enemy..someday you may actually understand the difference
Saw this speech on TV live, too. Carter blamed the american people for having a crisis of confidence. Well, duh. He didn't inspire any confidence. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...president-must-avoid-the-jimmy-carter-malaise
Don't you know?! When a liberal will refute anything you provide. If you talk about what a liberal president failed to do, they will Blame Congress. When the liberal blames a conservative president, they ignore the liberal congress. It's really quite sinple
This is true. Things Carter did affected the S&Ls so they gradually failed. GHW Bush did inherit a massive S&L bailout crisis. Reaganomics was so powerful and effective, it took decades before the economic engine was stalled. Coincidentally when Pelosi and Reid took over congress. Bush called Reaganomics "voodoo" and turned a 5% unemployment rate into a 7.5% one doing it his way. But between Reagan and Clinton, the economy added about 50M new workers. That's 14 of 18 years of solid economic production.
