% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • sosuaman sosuaman Jul 31, 2012 2:46 PM Flag

    Bio Still Obsessed with Bush

    Very sad indeed...

    As are most Obummer supporters.

    The Obama supporters have nothing good to say about ANYTHING. Especially about their Socialist leader.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Bio gets his "news" from the Huffington Post!!!!!!



      such an idiot joke....

      good job Bio..!!!!

    • i wonder if regan did this himself or did his congress help?????

    • i don't think 17 vac. and 100 rounds of golf cost trillons..seems like 2 wars are costly, and don't forget bailing out gop heavy weights {banks}

    • In contrast, today, the fed is borrowing at the LOWEST RATE EVER. That is because it is not competing with the private sector for cash. Cash is pouring in, as investors only concern is maintaining their principle. That is the sign of disinflation.

      When Reagan came in, we were experiencing INFLATION, which they countered by raising interest rates and killing the economy - inducing DEFLATION. Again, you seem to lack the understanding of the terms and context.

    • Yes, rates were high comparative to recent decades under Reagan, HOWEVER, we started at very high rates, when Reagan took office, not because of Reagan, but because of the end of the Vietnam war, and the economic problems caused by that, and the oil crisis and Iran crisis... which caused oil prices to skyrocket.

      So commodity inflation was high, and I don't think we did a great job of distinguishing real inflation from geo politically generated inflation back then.

      So interest rates were very high, they were further raised, causing high unemployment, but as an intentional action of the POLICY OF THE FED, not Reagan. Then they were lowered quickly, and though the treasury continued to pay high real rates on its bonds, because Reagan's spending was, at that time, competing with the private sector, for cash and debt, nonetheless, the rates had been lowered numerous percentage points down, and I think by half or more, which is extremely stimulative of any economy.

      So you really quoted Krugman out of context.

    • Reading your post, you'd think Krugman is against deficits currently. But that's not true. You continue to take people out of context to make your narrow point, which is intellecutally defunct.

      We are in a serious downturn. Obama's policies are not responsible for the massive increase in the deficit permanently, Bush's polices are. Obama wanted to fix that situation, if you read the articles I linked to it's quite clear.

      Reagan, created a massive, structural, permanent deficit that became huge over the decade of the '80s and '90s until CLINTON and Democrats raised taxes to create that surplus we had, WHILE we were prosperous... which is when you typically try to resolve permanent deficits.

      You need to learn to read Losrios, instead of being an ideologue trying to win a point that is without real content. You neither won the point, nor did you make any sense, nor are you apparently capable of escaping your illusions to have a meaningful conversation on economics.

    • Oh, with that name, "Americas Watch Tower" it must be objective and a reasonable source of information....

      Quoting Clinton no less . . . that's much more authoritative than a major newspaper in Houston, discussing oil production.

      The US is exporting oil for the first time. Our Gas production has increased to no less than incredible numbers. We are now the Saudi Arabia of Gas production.

    • <<Very sad indeed...>>

      Sosu, thats sort of hypocritical of you, being that you're so obsessed with President Obama you've lost your capability for rational thought, not that you much in the first place. And another reason you need to get over this Obama fixation is that you could end up with ulcers, if you don't have them already?