Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Same with republican administrations where policies were enacted, then the democrat gets elected - he takes all the credit for the results of the Republican efforts.


Such as?


Taking this into consideration, it is likely that the opposite is true - democrats have done more to destroy jobs and republicans have done more to create jobs.


Taking your factless example of an idea you have based on so far what seems to be nothing into consideration? Why would you.


Your response is typical lefty propaganda - forcing someone to "prove" something that doesn't need proving. If you have a brain in your skull you will know what I am talking about. The people with brains DO know what I am talking about, so I will disregard your response.


How is that response "lefty propaganda"? You made a specific claim, that democrats have done more to destroy jobs and republicans have done more to create jobs. Do you have evidence to back up that claim, or are we supposed to use our "special" mind power to just believe it?

Because anyone with a brain would not believe a word you or I say unless it's backed up with evidence. Do you have that evidence?

So since you have a brain, and the rest of us do not....I would be grateful if you could provide some substance to your statement. Because as you know, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


Yes...but it's much easier to just over-generalize, call people names, and ignore whatever doesn't support your preconceived notions in the pursuit of willful ignorance as an ideal state of being and/or a virtue.




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Which Scott Walker also did and Wisconsin is stealing all sorts of jobs from Illinois. In all fairness though Minnesota is booming in comparison to Illinois also.

Worked in Wisconsin, not in NJ. Why?

As for Reaganomics, well if you read my post I provided sources and papers pre-clinton that shows that trickle-down does work it can just take time. Again I cited sources POTUS 41 and POTUS 42 got a ray of sunshine from the Reagan era and a tech boom. You got any numbers to back your claims or just "Real Speak"?


Umm...I live in Wisconsin. Last year Walker's "plan" put Wisconsin DEAD LAST in job growth at -50,000. The next closest was Mississippi at -3,500-ish.

The July labor stats (the most current available right now) show unemployment on the rise again back up to 7.3%...and it's still SUMMERTIME in WISCONSIN!! Just wait until the massive construction layoffs roll in when the weather turns to 100 below holy-sh^t-it's-cold-outside.

So where are these fictional "jobs from Illinois" coming from? LOL. What Illinois companies have relocated to Wisconsin or changed vendors to Wisconsin companies that you know of? Can you cite a couple of the major ones? How does that compare with the offset in job losses from elsewhere in the state?

"Trickle down" has been failing every single day since the Reagan admin dreamed it up in the '80's. It's really "Trickle Up Poverty". Corporations are hurting because the All Mighty American Consumer can't buy the silly crap they produce anymore.

If Bush's $300 welfare checks that everybody got in the mail was good "economic stimulus"...then why isn't other forms of government spending on the peasants ALSO good economic stimulus. Regulate tuition increases and give students 25% more cash...they'll dump back into the economy...I PROMISE. Want to REALLY jump start the economy? Government Refi programs of 0% at 120% LTV on residential properties to be used on energy efficiency or renewables. Half or better of the houses in American would get new windows, insulation, or solar energy...AND SOMEBODY HAS TO INSTALL ALL OF IT.

Even better...these purchases go towards LOWERING the basic overhead costs of living instead of RAISING it like giving people home equity loans to buy stupidly large SUV's and boats.

Christ...EVEN THE POWER COMPANIES WIN...their infrastructure is falling apart and they cannot possibly afford to replace and rebuild it. Let's just offset the production shortages w/ distributed production. It's good for national security too. Al-Queda can bomb a power plant...but they can't hardly go around one by one and destroy 200 million rooftop solar panel installations.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   




"He inherited a deeply damaged economy," Clinton said of Obama, "put a floor under the crash, began the long, hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators."

"No president, not me or any of my predecessors, could have repaired all the damage in just four years," he said, going on to suggest that Obama's work was only half finished.

If you look at the headlines from 2008, the economy was in total meltdown. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Every other nation that went into recession went into double-dip numbers. We were only just able to stop the free-fall and claw back out of it.

I know we can't keep "blaming Bush", but we also can't keep ignoring just how badly damaged the economy was in 2008-9.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Yup...the economy is S-L-O-W.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Ummm...

As for WI unemployment. Turn off the TV and try reading instead. DLS for WI

It's improving overall up your way.
-

The Southern Illinoisian
Back in 2011 they knew it was starting.

Multi-Million corp moving to WI
Here's one that moved in 2011

A manufacturer

Another one

And that's just with 5 minutes and google.

-

Once again show numbers to refute Reaganomics or move on. I want numbers, not opinions.

I will say this again. I am not a right winger or a left winger. I hate all the lying politicians. B-rock, Mittens and the Doc should all go the way of the dinosaurs imo.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats


Clinton pointed out that under Democratic presidents since 1961, the economy has added 42 million private-sector jobs, while under Republicans it has added just 24 million. He used the same concept to argue that President Obama has outscored both congressional Republicans and his GOP presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, in terms of creating jobs. Clinton has some intriguing facts on his side. Aside from a rounding error, his historical numbers are accurate (figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the tally under Democrats since 1961 rounds to 41 million, not 42 million). I crunched the numbers a few different ways to see if Clinton was cherry-picking the best numbers. His figures measure job gains from the month a president took office until the month he left. Since it takes a year or so for any president's policies to go into effect, I also measured job gains from one year after each president took office till one year after he left. Here's the score by that measure: Democrats: 38 million new jobs, Republicans, 27 million.


No wonder the GOP hates fact checking. It shows how much they fail at their jobs small wonder why they always scream Reagan created 16 million jobs.


The economy did extremely well under Clinton because his vice-president created the internet and kicked off the home pc and .com explosion. Thanks Al!.
edit on 7-9-2012 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats


Clinton pointed out that under Democratic presidents since 1961, the economy has added 42 million private-sector jobs, while under Republicans it has added just 24 million. He used the same concept to argue that President Obama has outscored both congressional Republicans and his GOP presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, in terms of creating jobs. Clinton has some intriguing facts on his side. Aside from a rounding error, his historical numbers are accurate (figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the tally under Democrats since 1961 rounds to 41 million, not 42 million). I crunched the numbers a few different ways to see if Clinton was cherry-picking the best numbers. His figures measure job gains from the month a president took office until the month he left. Since it takes a year or so for any president's policies to go into effect, I also measured job gains from one year after each president took office till one year after he left. Here's the score by that measure: Democrats: 38 million new jobs, Republicans, 27 million.


No wonder the GOP hates fact checking. It shows how much they fail at their jobs small wonder why they always scream Reagan created 16 million jobs.


Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.

It would also be nice if you all could post "facts" that didn't originate from Democrat/Obama lap dog media. Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?
edit on 7-9-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 




Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.


Do you know what you just did here?

You admitted that the GOP has a worse track record.....and tried to blame the Dems!


Damn them inconvenient facts.

Who's not looking at this objectively like a partisan shill?



Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?


Why can't you accept fact when it's right in front of your face?
edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by PvtHudson
 




Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.


Do you know what you just did here?

You admitted that the GOP has a worse track record.....and tried to blame the Dems!


Damn them inconvenient facts.

Who's not looking at this objectively like a partisan shill?



Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?


Why can't you accept fact when it's right in front of your face?
edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


How is the sub prime loan implosion (Clinton policy, which was helped along by Obama), Bush's fault? What you're giving people here is not facts, but rather spin and opinion from left wing Democrats posing as journalists in the media.
edit on 7-9-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Ummm...

As for WI unemployment. Turn off the TV and try reading instead. DLS for WI

It's improving overall up your way.



Ok...just LOOK at the your own link. The unemployment rate in Wisconsin in FEBRUARY was 6.9%. In June and July is was 7.0% and 7.3% respectively...DESPITE the seasonal spike in employment that WI enjoys every summer from road, industrial, commercial, and residential construction as well as farm labor.

How the f^ck is that "improving overall"? Those are YOUR stats dude...not mine.


The Southern Illinoisian
Back in 2011 they knew it was starting.

Multi-Million corp moving to WI
Here's one that moved in 2011

A manufacturer

Another one


Well...while these companies might have moved to Wisconsin...we can hardly cite the "tax savings" since Wisconsin's taxes are still much, much, MUCH higher than Illinois taxes are. On average, WI still has a higher property taxes, road taxes, and utility taxes.

However...it might be possible that there would be a dramatic cost savings in terms the real estate costs themselves depending specifically upon whether or not these companies were "moving to Wisconsin" or moving to "bumblef^ck" Wisconsin.

I worked as a consultant and analyst for a number of years...and without looking at the books of each company the only guy I can see this really being a good idea for is the hotel analytics guy who presumably has a small number of employees and works in a highly virtualized environment....however he was moving FROM Wisconsin TO Illinois...DESPITE Walker's grand plan.

If you've ever moved a business you know that you probably need a whole hell of a lot better reason than a little tax cut...which could vanish immediately upon the next election if 3% of voters decide to swing the other way. What...you're going to transport equipment, relocate people, hire new employees, terminate your local facilities contracts, print new letterhead, advertising brochures, and business cards, send out mailers to your clients notifying them of the new address, redesign your website, AND suffer whatever ost productivity all of this entails for a minimum of 1Q...just so you can save 5-10% on your income taxes?

That's insane. Even a small business could spend far less than what the move would cost them to reorganize their corporate structure and enjoy a 0%-10% tax rate no matter what state they are in and no matter who the Governor is.



Once again show numbers to refute Reaganomics or move on. I want numbers, not opinions.

I will say this again. I am not a right winger or a left winger. I hate all the lying politicians. B-rock, Mittens and the Doc should all go the way of the dinosaurs imo.


Numbers which refute the validity of Reaganomics? Ok...as Exhibit A I submit the sum total of all economic data from 1980 to present which clearly illustrates that the middle classes are getting screwed for the benefit of the disgustingly wealthy who shelter their money in Cayman islands and then use said funds to invest in factories overseas.

Yeah..."trickle down" TECHNICALLY works...the only problem is that it works SO WELL that it completely bypasses everybody in the US. Admittedly it has done wonders for China, India, and other 3rd world sh^tholes the world over.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


The DLS statistics show an overall improvement, huge losses in only Construction and Leisure & Hospitality, which is down EVERYWHERE. Which your saying is spiking in WI because of the Summer. I show a -10% loss compared to last year in construction and improves again to -7.7%. How is there a boom in the construction industry in WI? The boom was a whopping 2%?

Leisure and Hospitality show a -6.7% loss with building trend. Next biggest loss is mining with -3.4%. All the others are trending steady or up.

If your really a data analysts these things should be plain to you. Look at the trends, not just the top number.

Once again, nothing to disprove "starving the beast" or "supply-side economics". Opinions and no facts. 8 years of Reagan contributed heavily to POTUS 41 and POTUS 42 success.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Also if you'd like I'll pull the numbers of Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton's (Dems) tenure as WI Governor and LT. if you'd like.

We can compare those to Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (Repubs).

You will be HIGHLY disappointed in both compared to the Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum years (Repubs.)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by PvtHudson
 




Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.


Do you know what you just did here?

You admitted that the GOP has a worse track record.....and tried to blame the Dems!


Damn them inconvenient facts.

Who's not looking at this objectively like a partisan shill?



Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?


Why can't you accept fact when it's right in front of your face?
edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)




You just don't understand. You must be part of the "liberal media" the way you're quoting him verbatim and pointing out the incoherency and hypocrisy which is part and parcel to his worldview.

I suppose now you're going to ask him some "gotcha questions" like "How is Bill Clinton pushing through the welfare cuts that Bush, Sr. proposed but didn't have the balls or the popularity to sign into law to blame for 60 years of repeated and utter economic failure for the GOP?" or "Don't you think that the housing bubble really occurred in the wake of 9-11 under baby Bush's admin like anybody can plainly see and recollect who wasn't in a coma between the years from 2001-12?"

You know who else doesn't blame the Democrats for the failures of GOP economic policies during the Post War era? KARL MARX that's who. Clearly you are in league with the Russians.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Also if you'd like I'll pull the numbers of Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton's (Dems) tenure as WI Governor and LT. if you'd like.

We can compare those to Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (Repubs).

You will be HIGHLY disappointed in both compared to the Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum years (Repubs.)


Well...of course. Eisenhower had some really good employment stats as well...but that doesn't mean that therefore Scott Walker's "plan" is sound. C'mon...TOMMY THOMPSON?? Seriously? The guy was governor from 1987-2001 during the longest sustained economic boom in the richest country that the world have ever seen....I should hope he had decent employment numbers.

Why don't we just stick to the "facts" where you just provided a link that CLEARLY shows Walker's policies are resulting in LESS JOBS and attempted to pitch it as "job growth"...presumably because you didn't even take the time to look at the very tables you assumed MUST be showing how wonderful trickle-down economics is.

Yeah...I'm the one who's been "watching too much TV". Right.

You know why "trickle-down" economics was dubbed "voodoo economics"? Because the very concept of supply-side economics in 1980 stood in stark and utter contrast to the sum total of all knowledge of economics theretofore previously compiled. If you would have answered the factor which "creates" jobs is the SUPPLY of jobs rather than the DEMAND for the products or services being offerred on an Econ test at ANY UNIVERSITY IN THE FREE WORLD in 1980 YOU WOULD HAVE FAILED THE COURSE because the concept was UTTERLY ALIEN.

But hey...we tried it...right? Even Clinton was far friendlier to "supply-side" thinking than any previous Democratic president. Now...look at a graph of the national debt and deficit spending from 1980 to the present and see if you notice any correlation with "Reaganomics" (HINT: The wild spike at an upwards 75-degree angle is a bad thing).



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by PvtHudson
 




Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.


Do you know what you just did here?

You admitted that the GOP has a worse track record.....and tried to blame the Dems!


Damn them inconvenient facts.

Who's not looking at this objectively like a partisan shill?



Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?


Why can't you accept fact when it's right in front of your face?
edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


How is the sub prime loan implosion (Clinton policy, which was helped along by Obama), Bush's fault? What you're giving people here is not facts, but rather spin and opinion from left wing Democrats posing as journalists in the media.
edit on 7-9-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)


I think you need to settle down, put the talking points/rhetoric handbook down and realize that your tactics of deflection and humorous irrelevancy will not work on anyone here.

The housing bubble popped under Bush. In fact, less than a year before Obama took office. 2008....ring a bell? But to be honest, it started in 2005/2006 as foreclosure rates and delinquencies rose sharply.

This was Bush's second term. He could have handled it in his first term, but he was too busy blowing brown-people up in the Middle East and didn't have time to worry if we got kicked out of our homes.

So you can take your "liberal media" cry-baby hogwash back to wherever you got it and bury it next to Old Yeller. It doesn't work anymore and it's about time that archaic nonsense was finally put to rest.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Also if you'd like I'll pull the numbers of Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton's (Dems) tenure as WI Governor and LT. if you'd like.

We can compare those to Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (Repubs).

You will be HIGHLY disappointed in both compared to the Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum years (Repubs.)


Well...of course. Eisenhower had some really good employment stats as well...but that doesn't mean that therefore Scott Walker's "plan" is sound. C'mon...TOMMY THOMPSON?? Seriously? The guy was governor from 1987-2001 during the longest sustained economic boom in the richest country that the world have ever seen....I should hope he had decent employment numbers.

Why don't we just stick to the "facts" where you just provided a link that CLEARLY shows Walker's policies are resulting in LESS JOBS and attempted to pitch it as "job growth"...presumably because you didn't even take the time to look at the very tables you assumed MUST be showing how wonderful trickle-down economics is.

Yeah...I'm the one who's been "watching too much TV". Right.

You know why "trickle-down" economics was dubbed "voodoo economics"? Because the very concept of supply-side economics in 1980 stood in stark and utter contrast to the sum total of all knowledge of economics theretofore previously compiled. If you would have answered the factor which "creates" jobs is the SUPPLY of jobs rather than the DEMAND for the products or services being offerred on an Econ test at ANY UNIVERSITY IN THE FREE WORLD in 1980 YOU WOULD HAVE FAILED THE COURSE because the concept was UTTERLY ALIEN.

But hey...we tried it...right? Even Clinton was far friendlier to "supply-side" thinking than any previous Democratic president. Now...look at a graph of the national debt and deficit spending from 1980 to the present and see if you notice any correlation with "Reaganomics" (HINT: The wild spike at an upwards 75-degree angle is a bad thing).


You may wanna look above that post and then edit this one. And still no links to facts just your talk. I have provided link after link after number after number. Care to try PROVING anything your saying?
edit on 7-9-2012 by thesungod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


The DLS statistics show an overall improvement, huge losses in only Construction and Leisure & Hospitality, which is down EVERYWHERE. Which your saying is spiking in WI because of the Summer. I show a -10% loss compared to last year in construction and improves again to -7.7%. How is there a boom in the construction industry in WI? The boom was a whopping 2%?

Leisure and Hospitality show a -6.7% loss with building trend. Next biggest loss is mining with -3.4%. All the others are trending steady or up.

If your really a data analysts these things should be plain to you. Look at the trends, not just the top number.

Once again, nothing to disprove "starving the beast" or "supply-side economics". Opinions and no facts. 8 years of Reagan contributed heavily to POTUS 41 and POTUS 42 success.


SEASONAL BOOM!!! That means that if the seasonal "boom" is -10% the whole state will be in a world of sh^t when winter rolls around AND YOU LOSE EVEN THOSE CONSTRUCTION JOBS.

You are reinforcing my point and are not even educated enough to see it. Similarly, even a High School economics textbook will teach you that it's faulty logic to apply observed trends in the Micro and extrapolate it out to the Macro or vice-versa. You can't make a case that "Walker is creating jobs in the economy overall" and then ignore the massive job losses from certain sectors and point only to the sectors which do happen to be growing.

If you care to revise your thesis to "Walker's economic policies are crushing jobs construction, mining, and hospitality and leisure although he does show modest gains in Sectors A, B,&C which has still resulted in a net loss of jobs during 2012"...you will hear no argument from me...BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOUR OWN DATA ILLUSTRATES.

...and I'm sorry...but you don't get to criticize me for not providing facts when you keep submitting data and articles that you didn't even bother reading and which CONTRADICT your viewpoint.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
My simplistic viewpoint. Very simplistic.

Republicans are Empire Builders.

Democrats are Home Repair



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Also if you'd like I'll pull the numbers of Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton's (Dems) tenure as WI Governor and LT. if you'd like.

We can compare those to Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (Repubs).

You will be HIGHLY disappointed in both compared to the Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum years (Repubs.)


Well...of course. Eisenhower had some really good employment stats as well...but that doesn't mean that therefore Scott Walker's "plan" is sound. C'mon...TOMMY THOMPSON?? Seriously? The guy was governor from 1987-2001 during the longest sustained economic boom in the richest country that the world have ever seen....I should hope he had decent employment numbers.

Why don't we just stick to the "facts" where you just provided a link that CLEARLY shows Walker's policies are resulting in LESS JOBS and attempted to pitch it as "job growth"...presumably because you didn't even take the time to look at the very tables you assumed MUST be showing how wonderful trickle-down economics is.

Yeah...I'm the one who's been "watching too much TV". Right.

You know why "trickle-down" economics was dubbed "voodoo economics"? Because the very concept of supply-side economics in 1980 stood in stark and utter contrast to the sum total of all knowledge of economics theretofore previously compiled. If you would have answered the factor which "creates" jobs is the SUPPLY of jobs rather than the DEMAND for the products or services being offerred on an Econ test at ANY UNIVERSITY IN THE FREE WORLD in 1980 YOU WOULD HAVE FAILED THE COURSE because the concept was UTTERLY ALIEN.

But hey...we tried it...right? Even Clinton was far friendlier to "supply-side" thinking than any previous Democratic president. Now...look at a graph of the national debt and deficit spending from 1980 to the present and see if you notice any correlation with "Reaganomics" (HINT: The wild spike at an upwards 75-degree angle is a bad thing).


You may wanna look above that post and then edit this one. And still no links to facts just your talk. I have provided link after link after number after number. Care to try PROVING anything your saying?
edit on 7-9-2012 by thesungod because: (no reason given)


There wasn't any specific data referenced that would normally get a footnote or link. It's common knowledge that the years between 1987-2001 were one hell of a bull market overall. That doesn't need a specific reference in the same way that saying "the economy really sucked during the Great Depression" doesn't need a specific reference.

You don't have much in the way of formal education, do you?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Wow. You don't even understand the concept of a "12 month % change", let alone that "Supply-side economics" was an answer to " Keynesian economics" and was from the 70s, NOT 80s. So your trying to call out my "formal education" huh?

You wanna know a little bit about me try reading this ATS Intro thread .

I'm done chatting with you until you post data. Anything other than talk and misunderstanding about how things work will be ignored.

Have a good one.





new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution